On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 11:38:43 AM Will Deacon wrote:

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:54:25AM +0000, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 11:24:11 AM Will Deacon wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 10:02:53PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote:

quoted

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

quoted

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

quoted

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?

Because I don't really see a valid excuse not to get this right first time
around. Lorenzo already has patches on top, so we just need a co-ordinated
review effort.

I wouldn't accept another patch series that needed minor rework (which by
its very nature is easily addressed), so why should ACPI be treated any
differently?

Not ACPI, but this particular patchset I think.  The problem is that it has
already been reviewed and ACKed by multiple people and it would be a shame
to require all of those people to do their reviews once again because of
that minor rework (which arguably can be done on top of the patchset just
fine).

Of course, if the minor rework in question would not involve the need to
review things once again, then I agree that it'd be better to do it upfront,
but otherwise there's a good reason not to.

Aha, I think this is just a misunderstanding -- I'm certainly not suggesting
that Hanjun rework the current set! What I *am* asking for is that they go
into mainline with Lorenzo's patches on top, which means that his series [1]
needs some review (and I plan to look at it later today).

OK, that works for me, thanks for the clarification!

For the record, I've looked at the Lorenzo's series already and I don't see
anything particularly objectionable in it.

[1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-March/333257.html

-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.