Messages in this thread | | | From | Arnd Bergmann <> | Date | Mon, 16 Sep 2019 18:29:30 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM, arm64: Remove arm_pm_restart() |
| |
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 5:50 PM Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 08:43:36AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 03:49:20PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 06:17:01AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > > On 9/16/19 12:49 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 5:26 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:05:06PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > > > > > From: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This small series is preparatory work for a series that I'm working on > > > > > > > which attempts to establish a formal framework for system restart and > > > > > > > power off. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guenter has done a lot of good work in this area, but it never got > > > > > > > merged. I think this set is a valuable addition to the kernel because > > > > > > > it converts all odd providers to the established mechanism for restart. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since this is stretched across both 32-bit and 64-bit ARM, as well as > > > > > > > PSCI, and given the SoC/board level of functionality, I think it might > > > > > > > make sense to take this through the ARM SoC tree in order to simplify > > > > > > > the interdependencies. But it should also be possible to take patches > > > > > > > 1-4 via their respective trees this cycle and patches 5-6 through the > > > > > > > ARM and arm64 trees for the next cycle, if that's preferred. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We tried this twice now, and it seems to go nowhere. What does it take > > > > > > to get it applied ? > > > > > > > > > > Can you send a pull request to soc@kernel.org after the merge window, > > > > > with everyone else on Cc? If nobody objects, I'll merge it through > > > > > the soc tree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, I'll rebase and do that. > > > > > > I've uploaded a rebased tree here: > > > > > > https://github.com/thierryreding/linux/tree/for-5.5/system-power-reset > > > > > > The first 6 patches in that tree correspond to this series. There were a > > > couple of conflicts I had to resolve and I haven't fully tested the > > > series yet, but if you haven't done any of the rebasing, the above may > > > be useful to you. > > > > > > > Maybe Arnd can just use your branch (or rather part of it if you would > > split it off) since you already did the work ?
The branch needs to be rebased once more as it is currently based on linux-next.
> Yeah, I can just send the pull request for the 6 patches after -rc1.
Ok, sounds good. I'm also happy to take the remaining patches in that branch, for the other architectures.
Arnd
| |