| Message ID | 20190108175818.705110-1-lkundrak@v3.sk (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Add support for OLPC XO 1.75 Embedded Controller | expand |
On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 7:58 PM Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@v3.sk> wrote: > > Hello! > > This is a fourth spin of the patch set that adds support for the > Embedded Controller on an OLPC XO 1.75 machine. > > It hopefully incorporated all feedback received previously and also > fixes the kbuild test bot failures. The failed builds were generally > caused by configurations where the EC driver was built as module. > > It turned out that the patch that turned the OLPC EC common code into > a module was not the brightest idea. I now dropped it and modified the > 04/15 to not require it. > > Also, the 01/15 patch has been added to allow the module to provide a > reboot handler. Patch 15/15 depends on it. Isn't it a quite big distance between provider and consumer? Especially taking into consideration concerns about patch 1 which blocks the series. Perhaps you may drop it as a patch 1 and do something on top of patch 15 as feature extension? > > Tested to work on an OLPC XO 1.75 and also tested not to break x86 > support with an OLPC XO 1 machine. I don't have a XO 1.5, but it's > unlikely this breaks it when XO 1 works. > > [01/15] ARM: export arm_pm_restart() > [02/15] dt-bindings: olpc,xo1.75-ec: Add OLPC XO-1.75 EC bindings > [03/15] Platform: OLPC: Remove an unused include > [04/15] Platform: OLPC: Add XO-1.75 EC driver > [05/15] Platform: OLPC: Avoid a warning if the EC didn't register yet > [06/15] Platform: OLPC: Move EC-specific functionality out from x86 > [07/15] Platform: OLPC: Use BIT() and GENMASK() for event masks > [08/15] Platform: OLPC: add a regulator for the DCON > [09/15] dt-bindings: olpc_battery: Add XO-1.5 battery > [10/15] x86, olpc: Use a correct version when making up a battery node > [11/15] power: supply: olpc_battery: Use DT to get battery version > [12/15] power: supply: olpc_battery: Move priv data to a struct > [13/15] power: supply: olpc_battery: Use devm_power_supply_register() > [14/15] power: supply: olpc_battery: Avoid using platform_info > [15/15] power: supply: olpc_battery: Add OLPC XO 1.75 support > > Lubo > >
On Wed, 2019-01-09 at 13:15 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 7:58 PM Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@v3.sk> wrote: > > Hello! > > > > This is a fourth spin of the patch set that adds support for the > > Embedded Controller on an OLPC XO 1.75 machine. > > > > It hopefully incorporated all feedback received previously and also > > fixes the kbuild test bot failures. The failed builds were > > generally > > caused by configurations where the EC driver was built as module. > > > > It turned out that the patch that turned the OLPC EC common code > > into > > a module was not the brightest idea. I now dropped it and modified > > the > > 04/15 to not require it. > > > > Also, the 01/15 patch has been added to allow the module to provide > > a > > reboot handler. Patch 15/15 depends on it. > > Isn't it a quite big distance between provider and consumer? > Especially taking into consideration concerns about patch 1 which > blocks the series. > Perhaps you may drop it as a patch 1 and do something on top of patch > 15 as feature extension? Yes, that is a good idea. I'll do so when I submit a new version of the set (in few days' time). I think the battery part can be split from the EC part too. Would that be a good idea to send them as separate patch sets next time? It seems to me now that they probably ought to end up going in via different trees (linux-power-supply vs linux-platform-drivers-x86). > > Tested to work on an OLPC XO 1.75 and also tested not to break x86 > > support with an OLPC XO 1 machine. I don't have a XO 1.5, but it's > > unlikely this breaks it when XO 1 works. > > > > [01/15] ARM: export arm_pm_restart() > > [02/15] dt-bindings: olpc,xo1.75-ec: Add OLPC XO-1.75 EC bindings > > [03/15] Platform: OLPC: Remove an unused include > > [04/15] Platform: OLPC: Add XO-1.75 EC driver > > [05/15] Platform: OLPC: Avoid a warning if the EC didn't register > > yet > > [06/15] Platform: OLPC: Move EC-specific functionality out from x86 > > [07/15] Platform: OLPC: Use BIT() and GENMASK() for event masks > > [08/15] Platform: OLPC: add a regulator for the DCON > > [09/15] dt-bindings: olpc_battery: Add XO-1.5 battery > > [10/15] x86, olpc: Use a correct version when making up a battery > > node > > [11/15] power: supply: olpc_battery: Use DT to get battery version > > [12/15] power: supply: olpc_battery: Move priv data to a struct > > [13/15] power: supply: olpc_battery: Use > > devm_power_supply_register() > > [14/15] power: supply: olpc_battery: Avoid using platform_info > > [15/15] power: supply: olpc_battery: Add OLPC XO 1.75 support > > > > Lubo > > > > > >
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 6:37 PM Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@v3.sk> wrote: > On Wed, 2019-01-09 at 13:15 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 7:58 PM Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@v3.sk> wrote: > > > Also, the 01/15 patch has been added to allow the module to provide > > > a > > > reboot handler. Patch 15/15 depends on it. > > > > Isn't it a quite big distance between provider and consumer? > > Especially taking into consideration concerns about patch 1 which > > blocks the series. > > Perhaps you may drop it as a patch 1 and do something on top of patch > > 15 as feature extension? > > Yes, that is a good idea. I'll do so when I submit a new version of the > set (in few days' time). > > I think the battery part can be split from the EC part too. Would that > be a good idea to send them as separate patch sets next time? Yes, any independent porions can be send independently. It would speed up the review and applying process. > It seems > to me now that they probably ought to end up going in via different > trees (linux-power-supply vs linux-platform-drivers-x86).