Hi Rafael,

On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 4:56 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki [off-list ref] wrote:

On Friday, February 05, 2016 09:47:40 AM Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 02:05:37PM +0530, Jayachandran Chandrashekaran Nair wrote:

[...]

quoted

pci_host_acpi.c is a generic implementation of these using a sysdata
pointing to acpi_pci_root_info, and using a pointer to the pci_mmcfg_region
to access ECAM area, Maybe I can rename this file to
pci_acpi_host_generic.c to reflect this better.

Maybe you should stop sending this series and work with Tomasz to
get this done, you are confusing everyone and I am really really
annoyed about this.

Do you realize there is no point in having two patch series doing
the same thing and wasting everyone's review time ?

Do you realize he started this work long before you and went through
several rounds of review already (I told you before but in case you
forgot) ?

Tomasz posted a version yesterday, integrating comments following months
of review and testing and I think it is ready to get upstream:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/2/4/646

Did you even consider reviewing his code or helping him instead of
churning out more patches doing the *SAME* thing ?

Do you want all of us to go through your code and re-fix what has
already been fixed in Tomasz's series with the end result of missing
yet another merge window ?

This is really annoying, stop it please, really.

OK, so to be crystal clear here.

I'm going to ignore the series the $subject patch belongs to going forward.

It looks like you can already reviewed Tomasz's patchset and as Lorenzo
says thinks that it can be merged.

When I first posted the patchset the state of arm64 ACPI/PCI was not that
clear - and I thought an alternative will help. Ideally I would expect
maintainers to look at technical merit, but in this case any working solution
merged will be great news.

Thanks,
JC.