On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 10:02:53PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote:
On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 19:39:27 +0000 , Will Deacon will.deacon@arm.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:17:27AM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 04:09:33AM +0000, Hanjun Guo wrote:
On 2015/3/19 3:05, Will Deacon wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:39:26PM +0000, Hanjun Guo wrote:
This patch set already tested on multi platforms:
- AMD Seattle board;
- Cavium Thunder board;
- Huawei D02 board;
- Qualcomm ARM64 platform
This version 10 patch set address some minor comments and collect ACKs and Reviewed-bys for v9:
- new Acks from Rafael, Olof, Grant, Lorenzo
- new way to handle typdef phys_cpuid_t which suggested by Rafael, but no functional change
- Remove if(!phys) for early ioremappings
- Rework sleep function for ARM64
- Introduce linux/acpi_irq.h to hold acpi_irq_init()
- Disable ACPI if not HW_REDUCED_ACPI compliant
- Remove the doc of why ACPI on ARM
So I've had a look at the current state of this series and I think there are a few immediate things left to do:
(1) Resolve the acpi=force cmdline issue highlighted by Lorenzo and Catalin
Sure, it will be done after the confirmation with Ard.
(2) I believe Sudeep and Lorenzo have concerns about patch 13 (SMP init), so I'm assuming there will be additional patches from them that are required.
Sorry, I assume that it is about the print information for PSCI absent for SMP init, right?
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?
The SMP init ACPI/DT consolidation, in particular in relation to cpu_ops may not be a blocking point, but it is not a whim either and it deserves some thought.
I will post a patch asap and the ACPI parking protocol support patches strictly depend on this clean-up to be completed.
Lorenzo