From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Horman Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 08:13:05 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] ARM: shmobile: r8a7740/armadillo800eva legacy PM domain support Message-Id: <20140930081305.GS16823@verge.net.au> List-Id: References: <1411661742-4767-1-git-send-email-geert+renesas@glider.be> <20140930042047.GA24253@verge.net.au> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 09:41:27AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Magnus, > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Magnus Damm wrote: > >>> So what is a good way to proceed with this series I wonder? > >> > >> There are two options: > >> 1. Drop the two patches that introduce the D4 and A4MP PM domains, > >> 2. Amend the patches that introduce the D4 and A4MP PM domains to > >> comment out the entries in the table in pm-r8a7740.c, like was done in > >> the first submission. > >> > >> Both will cause conflicts when applying the successive patches. > >> > >> If you don't care about bisectability, you can implement option 2 as a > >> separate change, after applying the whole series. > > > > Thanks for leading the way! From my side I don't have any special > > feeling, so why don't you and Simon decide? > > OK. > > > If it was up to me only then I think option #1 that simply reduces the > > feature set seems rather natural, but perhaps it requires a lot of > > rework of the patches. If we go with option #1 we can always > > incrementally add D4 and A4MP later I assume. > > Yes we can. > > Please wait a bit, I'm looking into the !CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME case. > Mostly multi-platform, but it may affect legacy too, where there's interaction > with the drivers/sh/pm_runtime.c hack. I also feel that option 1 is slightly nicer. But I'm happy to consider option 2 if its a better fit for you. As always I'm happy to wait and will now do so.