Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754435AbdC3DHq (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Mar 2017 23:07:46 -0400 Received: from mail-pg0-f44.google.com ([74.125.83.44]:34896 "EHLO mail-pg0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753003AbdC3DHp (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Mar 2017 23:07:45 -0400 Message-ID: <58DC7674.8020301@linaro.org> Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:07:32 +0800 From: Hanjun Guo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lorenzo Pieralisi , Marc Zyngier CC: Hanjun Guo , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Greg KH , Tomasz Nowicki , Ma Jun , Kefeng Wang , Sinan Kaya , huxinwei@huawei.com, yimin@huawei.com, linuxarm@huawei.com, majun258@huaiwei.com, "xuwei (O)" Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 10/15] ACPI: platform-msi: retrieve dev id from IORT References: <1488890410-15503-1-git-send-email-guohanjun@huawei.com> <1488890410-15503-11-git-send-email-guohanjun@huawei.com> <20170329101400.GA10807@red-moon> <58DBA010.1020002@linaro.org> <20170329123821.GA10988@red-moon> <58DBAFD6.7070300@linaro.org> <20170329161354.GC11297@red-moon> <20170329173243.GA6091@red-moon> In-Reply-To: <20170329173243.GA6091@red-moon> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3822 Lines: 87 On 03/30/2017 01:32 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 05:13:54PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 03:52:47PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: >>> On 29/03/17 14:00, Hanjun Guo wrote: >>>> On 03/29/2017 08:38 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 07:52:48PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: >>>>>> Hi Lorenzo, >>>>>> >>>>>> On 03/29/2017 06:14 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Hanjun, Marc, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 08:40:05PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: [...] >>>>>>>> drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>>>> drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its-platform-msi.c | 3 ++- >>>>>>>> include/linux/acpi_iort.h | 5 +++++ >>>>>>>> 3 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To simplify merging ACPI/IRQCHIP changes via different trees it >>>>>>> would be good to split this patch; I am not sure what's the best >>>>>>> way of handling it though given that we would end up in a merge >>>>>>> ordering dependency anyway (ie we can create an empty stub >>>>>>> for iort_pmsi_get_dev_id() but that would create a dependency >>>>>>> between ARM64 and irqchip trees anyway). >>>>>> >>>>>> The first 12 patches for ACPI platform MSI and later 3 patches >>>>>> for mbigen have no "physical" dependency, which means they can >>>>>> be merged and compiled independently, they only have functional >>>>>> dependency only. >>>>>> >>>>>> We already had SAS, XGE, USB and even UART drivers depend on >>>>>> the mbigen ACPI support, so I don't think the dependency of ACPI >>>>>> platform MSI and mbigen patches cares much if those two parts are >>>>>> merged in one merge window, even they are merged independently via >>>>>> different tree. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please let me know what's your preferred way of handling this. >>>>>> >>>>>> So in my opinion, they can be merged independently via ARM64 and >>>>>> irqchip tree with no ordering dependency, is it OK? >>>>> >>>>> I am speaking about merging MBIgen AND ITS patches via IRQCHIP and >>>>> ACPI/IORT for ARM64, that's why I replied to this patch. I do not >>>>> think that's feasible to split patches in two separate branches >>>>> without having a dependency between them. >>>>> >>>>> Sure, the last three patches can go via IRQCHIP but that was not >>>>> my question :) >>>> >>>> Sorry, I misunderstood that :( >>>> >>>> Since it's not feasible to split patches, the best way I got is that >>>> we get Marc's ack then merge it. >>> >>> I believe there is a way to make this work without too much hassle. I >>> suggest we drop the ITS change from this patch entirely, and I instead >>> queue this patch: >>> >>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/maz/arm-platforms.git/commit/?h=irq/irqchip-4.12&id=e6db07d0f3b6da1f8cfd485776bfefa4fcdbfc45 >>> >>> That way, no dependency between the two trees. Lorenzo takes all the >>> patches flagged "ACPI", I take all those flagged "irqchip" or "msi", and >>> everything should be perfectly standalone. >>> >>> Thoughts? >> >> Perfect for me. Hanjun, I can cherry pick Marc's patch above, rework >> this patch and post the resulting branch for everyone to have a final >> test. > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lpieralisi/linux.git acpi/arm64-acpi-4.12 > > Please have a look and let me know if that's ok, I planned to send > a PR to Catalin by the end of the week (first 7 patches up to > 7fc3061df075 ("ACPI: platform: setup MSI domain for ACPI based platform > device")). Perfect for me too, Lorenzo, Marc, Thank you very much. I'm currently in paternity leave and can't reach the machine, I had a detail review with the patches, they looks good to me, Ma Jun and Wei Xu will test on Hisilicon machines and give the feedback. Thanks Hanjun