On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 10:02:53PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote: > On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 19:39:27 +0000 > , Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com> > wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:17:27AM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 04:09:33AM +0000, Hanjun Guo wrote: > > > > On 2015/3/19 3:05, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:39:26PM +0000, Hanjun Guo wrote: > > > > >> This patch set already tested on multi platforms: > > > > >> - AMD Seattle board; > > > > >> - Cavium Thunder board; > > > > >> - Huawei D02 board; > > > > >> - Qualcomm ARM64 platform > > > > >> > > > > >> This version 10 patch set address some minor comments and collect > > > > >> ACKs and > > > > >> Reviewed-bys for v9: > > > > >> > > > > >> - new Acks from Rafael, Olof, Grant, Lorenzo > > > > >> - new way to handle typdef phys_cpuid_t which suggested by Rafael, > > > > >> but no functional change > > > > >> - Remove if(!phys) for early ioremappings > > > > >> - Rework sleep function for ARM64 > > > > >> - Introduce linux/acpi_irq.h to hold acpi_irq_init() > > > > >> - Disable ACPI if not HW_REDUCED_ACPI compliant > > > > >> - Remove the doc of why ACPI on ARM > > > > > So I've had a look at the current state of this series and I think > > > > > there > > > > > are a few immediate things left to do: > > > > > > > > > > (1) Resolve the acpi=force cmdline issue highlighted by Lorenzo and > > > > > Catalin > > > > > > > > Sure, it will be done after the confirmation with Ard. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (2) I believe Sudeep and Lorenzo have concerns about patch 13 (SMP > > > > > init), > > > > > so I'm assuming there will be additional patches from them that > > > > > are > > > > > required. > > > > > > > > Sorry, I assume that it is about the print information for PSCI absent > > > > for SMP init, right? > > > > > > Not only that, Sudeep has a patch to consolidate DT and ACPI SMP code, > > > I am working on it, I do not think it should be a blocking point, patch > > > coming asap on top of your series. > > > > Well, I don't really want to merge the series without those patches so I > > do think it blocks the code from getting into mainline. > > Really? It's a pretty minor duplication problem and it's been identified > as something requiring refactoring to both the ACPI and DT code. It > isn't at all dangerous. Why is this a blocking point?
The SMP init ACPI/DT consolidation, in particular in relation to cpu_ops may not be a blocking point, but it is not a whim either and it deserves some thought. I will post a patch asap and the ACPI parking protocol support patches strictly depend on this clean-up to be completed. Lorenzo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
