Messages in this thread | | | From | Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy Natarajan <> | Date | Sat, 3 Jun 2017 10:53:09 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 3/8] thermal: intel_bxt_pmic_thermal: Use first level PMIC thermal irq |
| |
Hi,
On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 8:28 PM, Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy Natarajan > <sathyaosid@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 6:00 AM, Andy Shevchenko >> <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 1:37 AM, >>> <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com> wrote: >>>> From: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com> >>>> >>>> PMIC mfd driver only exports first level irq for thermal device. >>>> But currently we are reading the irqs from the second level irq >>>> chip, So this patch fixes this issue by adding support to use >>>> first level PMIC thermal irq. >>>> >>> >>> Shouldn't be this squashed to patch 2? >> >> There is no compilation dependency between patch 2 and 3. But they are >> functionally dependent. >> >> Should we squash functionally dependent patches too ? > > Let's assume we applied patches 1 and 2, does it mean the regression > to the existing behaviour?
Yes, Just applying patch 1 & 2 and not apply patch 3 will create regression in thermal driver.
Since there is no compilation dependency between patch 2 & 3 and they are from two different domains, I submitted them separately to make it easier for review.
> > (For example, device worked improperly in some cases -> stopped > working completely) > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko
-- Sathya
| |