On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Lee Jones <lee.jo...@linaro.org> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Apr 2016, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Lee Jones <lee.jo...@linaro.org> wrote: >> > On Mon, 11 Apr 2016, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> > >> >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Lee Jones <lee.jo...@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> > On Mon, 11 Apr 2016, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Heikki Krogerus >> >> >> <heikki.kroge...@linux.intel.com> wrote: >> >> >> > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 09:20:27AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, 29 Mar 2016, Heikki Krogerus wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Since device_add_property_set() now always takes a copy of >> >> >> >> > the property_set, and also since the fwnode type is always >> >> >> >> > hard coded to be FWNODE_PDATA, there is no need for the >> >> >> >> > drivers to deliver the entire struct property_set. The >> >> >> >> > function can just create the instance of it on its own and >> >> >> >> > bind the properties from the drivers to it on the spot. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > This renames device_add_property_set() to >> >> >> >> > device_add_properties(). The function now takes struct >> >> >> >> > property_entry as its parameter instead of struct >> >> >> >> > property_set. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> >> >> >> >> > Reviewed-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerb...@linux.intel.com> >> >> >> >> > Acked-by: Thierry Reding <tred...@nvidia.com> >> >> >> >> > Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jo...@linaro.org> >> >> >> >> > Signed-off-by: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.kroge...@linux.intel.com> >> >> >> >> > --- >> >> >> >> > arch/arm/mach-pxa/raumfeld.c | 12 ++++-------- >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Daniel, I think we just need your ACK for this one. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Otherwise I think we are covered. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > arch/arm/mach-tegra/board-paz00.c | 6 +----- >> >> >> >> > drivers/base/platform.c | 19 ++++++++++--------- >> >> >> >> > drivers/base/property.c | 34 >> >> >> >> > +++++++++++++++++++++------------- >> >> >> >> > drivers/mfd/intel-lpss-acpi.c | 12 ++---------- >> >> >> >> > drivers/mfd/intel-lpss-pci.c | 20 ++++---------------- >> >> >> >> > drivers/mfd/intel-lpss.c | 2 +- >> >> >> >> > drivers/mfd/intel-lpss.h | 4 ++-- >> >> >> >> > drivers/mfd/mfd-core.c | 4 ++-- >> >> >> >> > include/linux/mfd/core.h | 4 ++-- >> >> >> >> > include/linux/platform_device.h | 6 +++--- >> >> >> >> > include/linux/property.h | 15 +++------------ >> >> >> >> > 12 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 83 deletions(-) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> What's happening with this patch? I believe we're still missing >> >> >> >> Acks. Once they are collected someone needs to create an immutable >> >> >> >> branch and send out a pull-request. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Rafael, have you had time to take a look at this? >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes, it's in my bleeding-edge branch now. I'm planning to move it to >> >> >> linux-next this week >> >> > >> >> > Please ensure you send out the relevant pull-requests. Linus doesn't >> >> > look his best when he's angry. >> >> >> >> I guess you mean I should expose by device-properties branch and >> >> notify the relevant people about that, right? >> > >> > Exactly. And the easiest way to do that is by sending out a >> > pull-request. >> >> I hoping that sending a message with the relevant information in a >> reply to this one will be sufficient. > > Because of the nature of MFD, I end up doing this kind of thing a lot. > > Here's what I normally do. Normally in reply to the cover-letter (0/x): > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/8/12/138
OK, makes sense. Thanks, Rafael
