From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751967AbaJAD3F (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Sep 2014 23:29:05 -0400 Received: from bh-25.webhostbox.net ([208.91.199.152]:51021 "EHLO bh-25.webhostbox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751042AbaJAD3C (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Sep 2014 23:29:02 -0400 Message-ID: <542B74F5.1080102@roeck-us.net> Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 20:28:53 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Rothwell CC: Andrew Morton , Russell King , Wim Van Sebroeck , Catalin Marinas , Maxime Ripard , linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, Will Deacon , Arnd Bergmann , Heiko Stuebner , Jonas Jensen , Randy Dunlap , Steven Rostedt , Ingo Molnar , Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov , David Woodhouse , Tomasz Figa , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sebastian Reichel , Mike Turquette Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 00/11] kernel: Add support for restart handler call chain References: <1408495538-27480-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <20140930142002.e09ef32392a2b5a7c81e5e57@linux-foundation.org> <20140930223000.GA20946@roeck-us.net> <20141001094001.2b85f54c@canb.auug.org.au> In-Reply-To: <20141001094001.2b85f54c@canb.auug.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated_sender: linux@roeck-us.net X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 X-CTCH-PVer: 0000001 X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown X-CTCH-Flags: 0 X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A020202.542B74FD.00F3,ss=1,re=0.000,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,cld=1,fgs=0 X-CTCH-Score: 0.000 X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000 X-CTCH-Rules: X-CTCH-SenderID: linux@roeck-us.net X-CTCH-SenderID-Flags: 0 X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalMessages: 3 X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSpam: 0 X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSuspected: 0 X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalConfirmed: 0 X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalBulk: 0 X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalVirus: 0 X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalRecipients: 0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - bh-25.webhostbox.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - roeck-us.net X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: bh-25.webhostbox.net: mailgid no entry from get_relayhosts_entry X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/30/2014 04:40 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Guenter, > > On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 15:30:00 -0700 Guenter Roeck wrote: >> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 02:20:02PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: >>> On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 17:45:27 -0700 Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> >>>> Introduce a system restart handler call chain to solve the described problems. >>> >>> So someone has merged eight of these patches into linux-next but these >>> three: >>> >>> watchdog-s3c2410-add-restart-handler.patch >>> clk-samsung-register-restart-handlers-for-s3c2412-and-s3c2443.patch >>> clk-rockchip-add-restart-handler.patch >>> >>> were omitted. What's up? >> >> Most likely PBKC on my side; Looks like I forgot to add those when I created >> the immutable branch for others to merge. Sorry for that :-(. >> >> Having said that, I somehow thought that the clock patches would go in through >> the clock tree. Heiko, did I get that wrong ? Separately, I sent a pull request >> that includes the watchdog patch to Wim. > > So far, that immutable branch has been merged into the battery tree > (and thus into linux-next) by Sebastian in order to add (I assume): > > 18a702e0de98 power: reset: use restart_notifier mechanism for msm-poweroff > 371bb20d6927 power: Add simple gpio-restart driver > > on top of it. > > So, I guess the watchdog and clk trees also need to merge that > immutable branch and then add their respective patches from the mmotm > series to their trees. > Yes, and now I remember why I did not include those patches: They are not authored by myself. I thought it was not appropriate for me to include them in the branch I created. Maybe flawed thinking, but that was my reasoning. Guenter