Messages in this thread |  | | From | Huacai Chen <> | Date | Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:35:47 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH V15 00/15] irqchip: Add LoongArch-related irqchip drivers |
| |
Hi, Marc,
On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 2:43 PM Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 03:38:09 +0100, > Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > Hi, Marc, > > > > On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 10:43 PM Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, 17 Jul 2022 15:08:14 +0100, > > > Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, Marc, Jianmin, > > > > > > > > I have an idea but I don't know whether it is acceptable: Marc gives > > > > an Acked-by for the whole series, then this irqchip series goes > > > > through the loongarch tree together with the PCI patches, then we > > > > don't need other hacks except the ACPI definitions. > > > > > > Not sure how this solves the original problem. PCI should never be > > > mandatory (it is actually super useful to be able to build a very > > > small kernel without too many drivers), and there shouldn't be > > > configurations where the kernel doesn't build. > > Now, the pci-loongson controller code (A) is in the PCI tree, the pci > > enablement code (B) is in the LoongArch tree, and the irqchip code (C) > > is in the irqchip tree. If the order for upstream is (A) --> (B) --> > > (C), there will be no build error. My above idea is to make sure the > > order of (B) and (C) is controlled in the same tree. PCI/MSI is a > > mandatory requirement for LoongArch, so I want to avoid some > > unnecessary #ifdefs. > > > > > > > > It is also my own responsibility to merge these things, and I'd rather > > > not delegate this, specially as it touches a bunch of other > > > subsystems. > > I know, this is reasonable. Then if we can control the order of > > (A)(B)(C) in three trees, the build error can be avoided in the > > linux-next tree. > > This would require stable branches between all three trees, as we > don't control the *order* of the merges. I'd have to carry (A) and (B) > as part of (C), which is really over the top. > > Just queue a patch to remove the #ifdef once we're at -rc1 and that > things have settled down. This will be simpler for everyone, and will > allow everyone to have a clean tree without dragging tons of extra > patches. OK, I agree with your decision.
Huacai > > M. > > -- > Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
|  |