From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lee Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 19/47] mfd: rk808: Register power-off handler with kernel power-off handler Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 22:42:27 +0000 Message-ID: <20141103224227.GF13359@x1> References: <1414425354-10359-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <1414425354-10359-20-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <20141103175346.GI12011@x1> <20141103190602.GE10558@roeck-us.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mail-ig0-f169.google.com ([209.85.213.169]:64934 "EHLO mail-ig0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751162AbaKCWmc (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Nov 2014 17:42:32 -0500 Received: by mail-ig0-f169.google.com with SMTP id hn18so5427461igb.0 for ; Mon, 03 Nov 2014 14:42:32 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141103190602.GE10558@roeck-us.net> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Guenter Roeck Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Chris Zhong , Zhang Qing , Samuel Ortiz On Mon, 03 Nov 2014, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 05:53:46PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, Guenter Roeck wrote: > >=20 > > > Register with kernel power-off handler instead of setting pm_powe= r_off > > > directly. Register with low priority to reflect that the original= code > > > only sets pm_power_off if it was not already set. > > >=20 > > > Cc: Chris Zhong > > > Cc: Zhang Qing > > > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck > > > --- > > > v3: > > > - Replace poweroff in all newly introduced variables and in text > > > with power_off or power-off as appropriate > > > - Replace POWEROFF_PRIORITY_xxx with POWER_OFF_PRIORITY_xxx > > > v2: > > > - New patch > > >=20 > > > drivers/mfd/rk808.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++-------------- > > > include/linux/mfd/rk808.h | 2 ++ > > > 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > >=20 > > Code looks okay: > >=20 > > Acked-by: Lee Jones > >=20 > Thanks! >=20 > > ... but how are you thinking about handling this set? > >=20 >=20 > Plan is to send the entire series directly to Linus in the next > commit window, as suggested by several of the affected maintainers. >=20 > I am still missing an Ack for patch 1 of the series. If/when I get > that, I'll set up the series except for the last patch to be added > to linux-next for it to get some exposure. >=20 > Of course, that plan may all fall apart if someone objects. In that c= ase, > the patches would have to be taken over several releases by the indiv= idual > maintainers. Very well. Either is okay with me. It might also be worth considering speaking to Linus and requesting permission to send during -rc1 to minimise the risk of a huge number of conflicts. --=20 Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org =E2=94=82 Open source software for ARM SoCs =46ollow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog