From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Guenter Roeck Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 19/47] mfd: rk808: Register power-off handler with kernel power-off handler Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 14:52:13 -0800 Message-ID: <20141103225213.GB18594@roeck-us.net> 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> <20141103224227.GF13359@x1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141103224227.GF13359@x1> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Lee Jones Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Chris Zhong , Zhang Qing , Samuel Ortiz List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 10:42:27PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > 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: > > > > > > > Register with kernel power-off handler instead of setting pm_power_off > > > > directly. Register with low priority to reflect that the original code > > > > only sets pm_power_off if it was not already set. > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > drivers/mfd/rk808.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++-------------- > > > > include/linux/mfd/rk808.h | 2 ++ > > > > 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > > > > > Code looks okay: > > > > > > Acked-by: Lee Jones > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > ... but how are you thinking about handling this set? > > > > > > > Plan is to send the entire series directly to Linus in the next > > commit window, as suggested by several of the affected maintainers. > > > > 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. > > > > Of course, that plan may all fall apart if someone objects. In that case, > > the patches would have to be taken over several releases by the individual > > 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. > That sounds like a good idea. I may have to split the patches into two parts anyway, to catch any new code setting pm_power_off directly. Maybe the first part can go in during the commit window and the final part after -rc1. Thanks, Guenter