From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FC371A0053 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 17:10:37 +1100 (AEDT) Message-ID: <1415772636.10731.6.camel@concordia> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Add IPMI support for powernv powerpc machines From: Michael Ellerman To: minyard@acm.org Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 17:10:36 +1100 In-Reply-To: <545B826F.7050501@acm.org> References: <1415245107.292153.444216242273.0.gpush@pablo> <545B826F.7050501@acm.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Jeremy Kerr List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 2014-11-06 at 08:15 -0600, Corey Minyard wrote: > On 11/05/2014 09:38 PM, Jeremy Kerr wrote: > > Corey & Michael: if this is acceptable, it may be mergable as two > > separate patches - one for the IPMI subsystem, one for the powernv > > platform. However, we'd need to preserve their order: patch 2/2 depends > > on 1/2, which provides the structure & function definitions. This'll > > break the build if only 2/2 is in the tree, and CONFIG_IPMI_POWERNV is > > set. > > > > Alternatively, they could be merged by one maintainer, pending an ack > > from the other. > > I'm fine either way. How about the third option? :) I've put patch 1 in a topic branch: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mpe/linux.git/log/?h=topic/opal-ipmi And will merge that into my next, probably by tomorrow. If you merge the topic branch and then apply patch 2/2, then it should all go in without any hiccups. cheers