| Message ID | 1800633.tdWV9SEqCh@kreacher (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | PCI: ACPI: Get rid of struct pci_platform_pm_ops and clean up code | expand |
[+cc Ferry] On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 08:52:19PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Hi All, > > As explained in the changelog of patch [2/7], using struct pci_platform_pm_ops > for ACPI is not particularly beneficial, so it is better to get rid of it and > call the functions pointed to by it directly from the PCI core. > > However, struct pci_platform_pm_ops is also used by the Intel MID support code, > but it is actually better to call the MID PM function directly from the PCI > core either, which is done in patch [1/7]. > > After these changes, patch [3/7] removes struct pci_platform_pm_ops and the > rest is just cleanups and some code consolidation on top of that. I like these a lot. Not sure exactly where everything is after the conversation with Ferry. Let me know if I should be doing anything.
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 1:28 AM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote: > > [+cc Ferry] > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 08:52:19PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > As explained in the changelog of patch [2/7], using struct pci_platform_pm_ops > > for ACPI is not particularly beneficial, so it is better to get rid of it and > > call the functions pointed to by it directly from the PCI core. > > > > However, struct pci_platform_pm_ops is also used by the Intel MID support code, > > but it is actually better to call the MID PM function directly from the PCI > > core either, which is done in patch [1/7]. > > > > After these changes, patch [3/7] removes struct pci_platform_pm_ops and the > > rest is just cleanups and some code consolidation on top of that. > > I like these a lot. Not sure exactly where everything is after the > conversation with Ferry. It's mostly OK, the problem was in one of the "tail" patches that was not rebased properly. There will be a follow-up series to test for Ferry (later today). > Let me know if I should be doing anything. I'm going to take this lot if that's not a problem. If I need anything from you, I'll let you know.
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 02:00:59PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 1:28 AM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > [+cc Ferry] > > > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 08:52:19PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > > > As explained in the changelog of patch [2/7], using struct pci_platform_pm_ops > > > for ACPI is not particularly beneficial, so it is better to get rid of it and > > > call the functions pointed to by it directly from the PCI core. > > > > > > However, struct pci_platform_pm_ops is also used by the Intel MID support code, > > > but it is actually better to call the MID PM function directly from the PCI > > > core either, which is done in patch [1/7]. > > > > > > After these changes, patch [3/7] removes struct pci_platform_pm_ops and the > > > rest is just cleanups and some code consolidation on top of that. > > > > I like these a lot. Not sure exactly where everything is after the > > conversation with Ferry. > > It's mostly OK, the problem was in one of the "tail" patches that was > not rebased properly. > > There will be a follow-up series to test for Ferry (later today). > > > Let me know if I should be doing anything. > > I'm going to take this lot if that's not a problem. If I need > anything from you, I'll let you know. Sounds good, thanks, Rafael! Bjorn
Hi Op 29-09-2021 om 01:28 schreef Bjorn Helgaas: > [+cc Ferry] > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 08:52:19PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> As explained in the changelog of patch [2/7], using struct pci_platform_pm_ops >> for ACPI is not particularly beneficial, so it is better to get rid of it and >> call the functions pointed to by it directly from the PCI core. >> >> However, struct pci_platform_pm_ops is also used by the Intel MID support code, >> but it is actually better to call the MID PM function directly from the PCI >> core either, which is done in patch [1/7]. >> >> After these changes, patch [3/7] removes struct pci_platform_pm_ops and the >> rest is just cleanups and some code consolidation on top of that. > > I like these a lot. Not sure exactly where everything is after the > conversation with Ferry. Let me know if I should be doing anything. > I will happily retest likely on Sunday after I return from short holiday and report back here.
Hi All, This series is on top of the linux-next branch from linux-pm.git: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git linux-next which should be included in linux-next. Two of the 3 patches in this series, [1-2/3], were included in the "PCI: ACPI: Get rid of struct pci_platform_pm_ops and clean up code" series: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-acpi/1800633.tdWV9SEqCh@kreacher/ and the remaining one, [3/3] is a new version of a problematic patch from that series. The rest of that series is present in the git branch above. All of the 3 patches in this set need to be tested in order to verify that there are no more issues that need to be addressed in them. Ferry, please test! Thanks!
Hi, Op 29-09-2021 om 20:05 schreef Rafael J. Wysocki: > Hi All, > > This series is on top of the linux-next branch from linux-pm.git: > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git linux-next > > which should be included in linux-next. > > Two of the 3 patches in this series, [1-2/3], were included in the "PCI: ACPI: > Get rid of struct pci_platform_pm_ops and clean up code" series: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-acpi/1800633.tdWV9SEqCh@kreacher/ > > and the remaining one, [3/3] is a new version of a problematic patch from that > series. The rest of that series is present in the git branch above. > > All of the 3 patches in this set need to be tested in order to verify that > there are no more issues that need to be addressed in them. > > Ferry, please test! This is how I tested: 3 patches from https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-acpi/patch/2793105.e9J7NaK4W3@kreacher/ on top of 5.15.0-rc2 as before 4 patches from v2 in the order of linux-pm.git then tested without, with 1/3, 1+2/3, 1+2+3/3 on top (with only 3/3 the new patch, 1+2/3 taken from v2 as they are unchanged). In all 4 cases I didn't find any trouble (related to this patch). Thanks for doing this! > Thanks! > > > >
On Sun, Oct 3, 2021 at 10:14 PM Ferry Toth <fntoth@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > Op 29-09-2021 om 20:05 schreef Rafael J. Wysocki: > > Hi All, > > > > This series is on top of the linux-next branch from linux-pm.git: > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git linux-next > > > > which should be included in linux-next. > > > > Two of the 3 patches in this series, [1-2/3], were included in the "PCI: ACPI: > > Get rid of struct pci_platform_pm_ops and clean up code" series: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-acpi/1800633.tdWV9SEqCh@kreacher/ > > > > and the remaining one, [3/3] is a new version of a problematic patch from that > > series. The rest of that series is present in the git branch above. > > > > All of the 3 patches in this set need to be tested in order to verify that > > there are no more issues that need to be addressed in them. > > > > Ferry, please test! > > This is how I tested: > 3 patches from > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-acpi/patch/2793105.e9J7NaK4W3@kreacher/ > on top of 5.15.0-rc2 as before > 4 patches from v2 in the order of linux-pm.git > then tested without, with 1/3, 1+2/3, 1+2+3/3 on top (with only 3/3 the > new patch, 1+2/3 taken from v2 as they are unchanged). > > In all 4 cases I didn't find any trouble (related to this patch). > > Thanks for doing this! Thank you!