Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 19 Aug 2022 13:02:30 +0300
From:   Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Utkarsh Patel <utkarsh.h.patel@intel.com>,
        rajmohan.mani@intel.com, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] ACPI: New helper function
 acpi_dev_get_memory_resources() and a new ACPI ID
Message-ID: <Yv9ftg2MVx+okmzC@kuha.fi.intel.com>
References: <20220816101629.69054-1-heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>
 <Yv6PLl4aLPzHTJTQ@kroah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Yv6PLl4aLPzHTJTQ@kroah.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 09:12:46PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 01:16:23PM +0300, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > The helper function returns all memory resources described for a
> > device regardless of the ACPI descriptor type (as long as it's
> > memory), but the first patch introduces new ACPI ID for the IOM
> > controller on Intel Meteor Lake and also separately modifies the
> > driver so that it can get the memory resource from Address Space
> > Resource Descriptor.
> > 
> > An alternative would have been to introduce that helper function first
> > so we would not need to modify the driver when the new ID is added,
> > but then the helper would also need to be applied to the stable kernel
> > releases, and that does not feel necessary or appropriate in this
> > case, at least not IMO.
> > 
> > So that's why I'm proposing here that we first add the ID, and only
> > after that introduce the helper, and only for mainline. That way the
> > patch introducing the ID is the only that goes to the stable releases.
> > 
> > If that's okay, and these don't have any other problems, I assume it's
> > OK if Rafael takes all of these, including the ID?
> 
> I took the id now, for 6.0-final as it seems to be totally independant
> of the other commits (otherwise you would not have tagged it for the
> stable tree.)
> 
> The remainder should probably be resent and send through the acpi tree.

Okay. The last patch depends on that ID patch, so Rafael, you need to
handle that conflict with immutable branch I guess. Or should we just
skip that patch for now?

I think another way to handle this would be that Greg, you take the
whole series.

thanks,

-- 
heikki