On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:32:26PM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:14:49PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 08:14:11PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:

quoted

Reported-by: Pankaj Bansal <redacted>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-acpi/20191215203303.29811-1-pankaj.bansal@nxp.com/ (local)
Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <redacted>
Cc: Pankaj Bansal <redacted>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <redacted>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
---

I'm a bit confused about the SoB chain here and which tree this is
targetting.

Lorenzo?

sorry about that. It targets arm64 - previously wasn't addressed
to you and Catalin:

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/1577708824-4873-1-git-send-email-guohanjun@huawei.com/ (local)

I rewrote the commit log and asked Hanjun to repost it to target an arm64
merge.

No need to apologise, just trying to figure out what's going on. Thanks for
the explanation.

Having said that, this patch makes me nervous, it can break on platforms
that have non-compliant firmware, I wonder whether it is best to leave
it in -next for a whole cycle (I can send it to -next) to catch any
fall-out rather than targeting v5.6 given that technically is _not_ a
fix (we may even have to revert it - it requires coverage on all ARM64
ACPI systems).

What do you think ?

My experience with linux-next is that it doesn't get tonnes of runtime
testing but rather lots of build testing, so I'd be inclined to queue
this for 5.6 (i.e. for the upcoming merge window) and revert it the moment
it causes a problem.

I'll stick it on its own branch so we can also drop it if something comes
up before then.

Will

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel