Subject: [PATCH v10 00/21] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1

From: [email-masked] (Will Deacon)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 11:38:43 +0000

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:54:25AM +0000, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 11:24:11 AM Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 10:02:53PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote:
> > > On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 19:39:27 +0000 , Will Deacon <[email-masked]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:17:27AM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > > > > 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?
> > 
> > Because I don't really see a valid excuse not to get this right first time
> > around. Lorenzo already has patches on top, so we just need a co-ordinated
> > review effort.
> > 
> > I wouldn't accept another patch series that needed minor rework (which by
> > its very nature is easily addressed), so why should ACPI be treated any
> > differently?
> 
> Not ACPI, but this particular patchset I think.  The problem is that it has
> already been reviewed and ACKed by multiple people and it would be a shame
> to require all of those people to do their reviews once again because of
> that minor rework (which arguably can be done on top of the patchset just
> fine).
> 
> Of course, if the minor rework in question would not involve the need to
> review things once again, then I agree that it'd be better to do it upfront,
> but otherwise there's a good reason not to.

Aha, I think this is just a misunderstanding -- I'm certainly not suggesting
that Hanjun rework the current set! What I *am* asking for is that they go
into mainline with Lorenzo's patches on top, which means that his series [1]
needs some review (and I plan to look at it later today).

> And, as a maintainer, you can always say "Well, I'm taking this conditional on
> doing this-and-that on top of it and I won't be taking any more patches from
> you in the future if that doesn't happen."

I can't really take that stance for a new feature like this.

Will

[1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-March/333257.html