On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 06:29:30PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 5:50 PM Thierry Reding <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 08:43:36AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 03:49:20PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 06:17:01AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > > > On 9/16/19 12:49 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 5:26 PM Guenter Roeck <[email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:05:06PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > > > > > > From: Thierry Reding <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This small series is preparatory work for a series that I'm > > > > > > > > working on > > > > > > > > which attempts to establish a formal framework for system > > > > > > > > restart and > > > > > > > > power off. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guenter has done a lot of good work in this area, but it never > > > > > > > > got > > > > > > > > merged. I think this set is a valuable addition to the kernel > > > > > > > > because > > > > > > > > it converts all odd providers to the established mechanism for > > > > > > > > restart. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since this is stretched across both 32-bit and 64-bit ARM, as > > > > > > > > well as > > > > > > > > PSCI, and given the SoC/board level of functionality, I think > > > > > > > > it might > > > > > > > > make sense to take this through the ARM SoC tree in order to > > > > > > > > simplify > > > > > > > > the interdependencies. But it should also be possible to take > > > > > > > > patches > > > > > > > > 1-4 via their respective trees this cycle and patches 5-6 > > > > > > > > through the > > > > > > > > ARM and arm64 trees for the next cycle, if that's preferred. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We tried this twice now, and it seems to go nowhere. What does it > > > > > > > take > > > > > > > to get it applied ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you send a pull request to [email protected] after the merge > > > > > > window, > > > > > > with everyone else on Cc? If nobody objects, I'll merge it through > > > > > > the soc tree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, I'll rebase and do that. > > > > > > > > I've uploaded a rebased tree here: > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/thierryreding/linux/tree/for-5.5/system-power-reset > > > > > > > > The first 6 patches in that tree correspond to this series. There were a > > > > couple of conflicts I had to resolve and I haven't fully tested the > > > > series yet, but if you haven't done any of the rebasing, the above may > > > > be useful to you. > > > > > > > > > > Maybe Arnd can just use your branch (or rather part of it if you would > > > split it off) since you already did the work ? > > The branch needs to be rebased once more as it is currently > based on linux-next.
Yeah, I usually do that once -rc1 is out. > > Yeah, I can just send the pull request for the 6 patches after -rc1. > > Ok, sounds good. I'm also happy to take the remaining patches > in that branch, for the other architectures. All of the patches beyond the 6 in this set rely on the system reset and power "framework". I don't think there was broad concensus on that idea yet. If you think it's worth another try I'm happy to send the patches out again. Thierry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
