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:   Tue, 22 Nov 2022 14:13:15 -0800
From:   Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
To:     Raul Rangel <rrangel@chromium.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-input <linux-input@vger.kernel.org>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
        Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>,
        Tim Van Patten <timvp@google.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        "jingle.wu" <jingle.wu@emc.com.tw>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
        Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Terry Bowman <terry.bowman@amd.com>, Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        llvm@lists.linux.dev, Alexis Savery <asavery@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 06/13] ACPI: resources: Add wake_capable parameter to
 acpi_dev_irq_flags
Message-ID: <Y31JezKDlQjmld03@google.com>
References: <CAHQZ30CJyhPK-OriZ5NZ=GjwNbofaCW6GZ_CvPsL0WiJGsxs-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJZ5v0gcJRoMSODbTevRdK1zaEZHJcPxvG6XMy9-T_jvwxPFBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHQZ30CQd-0YnQgYG_OJVWn9_aUjvDAuT_DRGsxQF-q+bjr5BA@mail.gmail.com>
 <YzYowYJpRTImmg4m@google.com>
 <CAJZ5v0i+QYcMuqsK9y6qy9qzJdUp503Sidr1e4V_ROyumLKCsw@mail.gmail.com>
 <YzcqdTxLMF5028yz@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <YzcthIfnpi8E6XVk@google.com>
 <CAJZ5v0iKXWBGYPmmg9__g3oHK2GhY+xFMnSA6c5KctOv2kTfNQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHQZ30D0NmVytkmiVYYZdGMEOChsO93hYRrG6SNbFiRO4S=YGA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHQZ30D-vBHQG9tDXy_upKHzfFMA9ttUT72K4hqKNS+CtEek3w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHQZ30D-vBHQG9tDXy_upKHzfFMA9ttUT72K4hqKNS+CtEek3w@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 11:36:07AM -0700, Raul Rangel wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 8:53 AM Raul Rangel <rrangel@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 15, 2022 at 10:56 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 7:55 PM Dmitry Torokhov
> > > <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 08:42:13PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 07:13:37PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 1:22 AM Dmitry Torokhov
> > > > > > <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > > I think that patches [5-8/13] from this series are significant
> > > > > > framework changes, so it would make sense to route them via the ACPI
> > > > > > tree.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If this is fine with everybody, I will queue them up for merging into
> > > > > > 6.1 (probably in the second half of the upcoming merge window).
> > > > >
> > > > > I believe it's fine from GPIO ACPI perspective (there shouldn't be conflict,
> > > > > but if you wish you always may take this PR [1] to your tree (it's already in
> > > > > GPIO tree pending v6.1), it may be considered as immutable tag.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-gpio/Yym%2Fj+Y9MBOIhWtK@black.fi.intel.com/
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, having an immutable branch hanging off 6.0-rcN would be awesome -
> > > > I could pull it and this would avoid any potential conflicts later.
> > >
> > > This material is in the mainline now, but the branch is still there in
> > > case you need it:
> > >
> > >  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git \
> > >  acpi-wakeup
> > >
> > > It won't be necessary any more after 6.1-rc1 is out, though, I suppose.
> >
> 
> >
> > Awesome, thanks for merging in the ACPI patches!
> 
> Dmitry,
>  What are the next steps to getting the I2C patches landed? Should I
> push out a new series that's rebased on 6.1-rc1?

Everything should be applied now and will be in 6.2.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry