On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 19:39:27 +0000
, Will Deacon [off-list ref]
 wrote:

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:17:27AM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 04:09:33AM +0000, Hanjun Guo wrote:

quoted

On 2015/3/19 3:05, Will Deacon wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:39:26PM +0000, Hanjun Guo wrote:

quoted

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.

quoted

  (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?

g.