lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC
On Thu, 07 Sep 2017 15:00:01 +0200,
Lee Jones wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > This patch adds the MFD driver for Dollar Cove (TI version) PMIC with
> > > > > > > > > > > > ACPI INT33F5 that is found on some Intel Cherry Trail devices.
> > > > > > > > > > > > The driver is based on the original work by Intel, found at:
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/01org/ProductionKernelQuilts
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > This is a minimal version for adding the basic resources. Currently,
> > > > > > > > > > > > only ACPI PMIC opregion and the external power-button are used.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=193891
> > > > > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
> > > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > > v4->v5:
> > > > > > > > > > > > * Minor coding-style fixes suggested by Lee
> > > > > > > > > > > > * Put GPL text
> > > > > > > > > > > > v3->v4:
> > > > > > > > > > > > * no change for this patch
> > > > > > > > > > > > v2->v3:
> > > > > > > > > > > > * Rename dc_ti with chtdc_ti in all places
> > > > > > > > > > > > * Driver/kconfig renames accordingly
> > > > > > > > > > > > * Added acks by Andy and Mika
> > > > > > > > > > > > v1->v2:
> > > > > > > > > > > > * Minor cleanups as suggested by Andy
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > drivers/mfd/Kconfig | 13 +++
> > > > > > > > > > > > drivers/mfd/Makefile | 1 +
> > > > > > > > > > > > drivers/mfd/intel_soc_pmic_chtdc_ti.c | 184 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > > > > > > > > 3 files changed, 198 insertions(+)
> > > > > > > > > > > > create mode 100644 drivers/mfd/intel_soc_pmic_chtdc_ti.c
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > For my own reference:
> > > > > > > > > > > Acked-for-MFD-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Now the question is how to deal with these. It's no critical things,
> > > > > > > > > > so I'm OK to postpone for 4.15. OTOH, it's really a new
> > > > > > > > > > device-specific stuff, thus it can't break anything else, and it'd be
> > > > > > > > > > fairly safe to add it for 4.14 although it's at a bit late stage.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yes, you are over 2 weeks late for v4.14. It will have to be v4.15.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > OK, I'll ring your bells again once when 4.15 development is opened.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please don't. Just collect all the Acks you have received and sent
> > > > > > > out the set again changing [PATCH] for [RESEND]. Only if there
> > > > > > > haven't been any code changes of course.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You seem to have applied the patches in some branch, but still do I
> > > > > > need to resend the whole patches?
> > > > >
> > > > > That's up to the Platform Maintainers.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since the MFD and ACPI are applied, you do not need to resend those.
> > > > >
> > > > > > BTW, was patch 2/3 applied? I miss your notification mail.
> > > > >
> > > > > Patch 2 needs to be applied into the Platform tree.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since there are no deps between the patches, they should be applied
> > > > > into their own trees (as previously discussed). I only applied the
> > > > > ACPI patch because Rafael asked me nicely. Normally this should have
> > > > > gone in separately too.
> > > >
> > > > Andy already expressed his preference about the patch going through
> > > > MFD tree in the v5 thread. Below is the excerpt.
> > >
> > > If Andy is happy for me to apply the patch without an immutable
> > > branch, then I'll take it. But as I've already said, this it
> > > non-optimal.
> > >
> > > There is no reason why it can't be taken in via the Platform tree.
> > > Nothing depends on it and it depends on nothing, since it is new
> > > code.
> >
> > That approach is also far from optimal, too, as Rafael and I
> > explained.
>
> That's just my point. This approach is optimal.
>
> The alternative is that I (or someone else) jumps through the required
> hoops to create an immutable branch. As a one off, it's not actually
> that big of a deal. However, if I do it for you, I have to do it for
> every submitter, else it's not fair to them.

Lee, that's an overreaction. No one would think that I'm special even
if you would do that :)

I can create such a branch by myself, and send you pull requests, if
it's a preferred way. That's no problem. It'd be much less time than
discussing in a too lengthy thread, honestly speaking. But maybe the
problem isn't that...

> MFD patch-sets inherently cross subsystem boundaries, which means I
> would end up taking many more patches than I do already. Subsequently
> the per-cycle MFD pull-request exponentially grows in size, as does my
> work load.

Yeah, I understand that. OTOH, I don't understand the reason to
refuse the IB as much possible -- there are several ways to manage
that more easily.

For example, you can keep a persistent branch that can be branched off
at any time for a new IB, while keeping another branch for regular,
rather unstable patch applications. For linux-next, you can provide
the temporary merged branch, too. It's a way some trees deploy.

> This is the way we've been working for years, and it works really
> well. I'm not about to change something which isn't broken, just to
> avoid the really tiny corner-case you described before.

I'd disagree about it being a tiny corner-case. It's fundamental to
provide a solid code basis which user can test / development on. If
we do release kernels more frequently, it shouldn't be a problem.
(e.g. for a fix between RC's, it's fine to merge through individual
trees.) But if the merge will be done first after 3 months, no one
can guarantee what would happen in these 3 months. That's why we need
the solid merge point to begin with. It allows a way to debug for
potential breakage after that point.


thanks,

Takashi

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-07 15:30    [W:0.070 / U:0.300 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site