On 04/26/2016 06:35 AM, Will Deacon wrote:

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 09:03:25PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:

quoted

On 2016/4/26 20:15, Will Deacon wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 01:31:07PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:

quoted

On 2016/4/26 0:47, David Daney wrote:

[...]

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

Given that this ACPI series already requires some significant cross-arch
interaction (which is actually good!), perhaps extending the clean-up
patches to encompass some of the ACPI bits might make sense, and we can
get that queued as a pre-requisite.

The cleanup patches you mention above are really independent of the ACPI
things.  I have applied them both before and after the ACPI patches, and
both seem to work.  With a quick perusal of the ACPI patches nothing
jumps out at me as being a candidate for inclusion in the header file
cleanup series.

I agree. My patch set is ACPI related enablement, cleanups and
consolidations, it would be good to merge as a single patch set
as it's self-contained.

Up to you. I just thought you might want to avoid having two sets of
cross-arch changes and the associated merging headaches that go with
that.

Good point, as I suggested above, it can go with ACPI tree if it's ok
to you and Rafael. The problem we have now is that dt based core NUMA
support for ARM64 is queued in your tree, that would be the headache.

Sorry, but if you wanted me *not* to queue the patches, then you should
have said so (similarly, if you wanted a stable branch). I'm not rebasing
our for-next/core branch now.

I am quite happy with the fact that you put the base device-tree based 
NUMA patches on for-next/core.

There is only a very small adjustment to those in the ACPI-NUMA patches 
([PATCH v5 06/14] arm64, numa: rework numa_add_memblk()), so I think we 
are fine as far as that goes.

My plan is to post a v6 later today that adjusts some of the messages 
printed out and adds some Reviewed-by and Acked-by that were accumulated.

David.