[PATCHv5 00/11] MSI support for Marvell EBU PCIe driver

[Jason Cooper]

Thomas (tglx), Russell (rmk),

Please see my request below.

On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 11:49:21AM -0700, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 03:39:11PM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> > Dear Jason Cooper,
> > 
> > On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 09:15:47 -0400, Jason Cooper wrote:
> > 
> > > > A quick diagram of the dependencies, best viewed with a fixed-size font
> > > > mailer.
> > > > 
> > > > kernel/irq/irqdomain    drivers/pci        arch/arm/kernel
> > > >      patch 1           patch 2, 3, 4           patch 8
> > > >         ||                  ||                   ||
> > > >         ||                  \/                   \/
> > > >         ||               drivers/of   ==> drivers/pci/host
> > > >         ||                patch 5           patch 10
> > > >         ||                  ||
> > > >         \\__________________//
> > > >                   ||
> > > >                   \/
> > > >             drivers/irqchip
> > > >               patch 6, 7
> > > 
> > > Well, that got more complicated.  :(  No cookie for you.
> > 
> > Yeah, sorry about this. I'm not sure how to handle that differently.
> > 
> > > > Patches 9 and 11 are DT patches, so they are not mentioned in this
> > > > diagram.
> > > > 
> > > > Normally tegra would require 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8, so ideally, with
> > > > the respective maintainers ACKs, Jason Cooper could take them in a
> > > > specific topic stable branch that would not be rebased, on top of which
> > > > both the Marvell work and Tegra work could be done.
> > > 
> > > After my recent discussions with tglx, here's my proposal:
> > > 
> > > - rmk creates a dedicated topic branch with patch 8
> > > 
> > > - Bjorn creates a dedicated topic branch based on rmk's with 2, 3, 4, 5,
> > >   and 10
> > > 
> > > - tglx creates a dedicated topic branch based on Bjorn's with 1, 6, 7
> > 
> > I am wondering if this merge strategy isn't too complicated to work
> > nicely. Would it be easier if one person took all of those patches in a
> > stable topic branch, with the ACKs from the proper maintainers?
> > 
> > But anyway, as long as things get merged, I don't really mind what
> > merge strategy is used, so I'll trust on what will be the best option
> > on this.
> > 
> > Thanks a lot for taking care of this!
> 
> Hi Thomas, Jason,
> 
> I've talked this over with Stephen and he'd be willing to create the
> stable branch with patches 2, 4 and 8. That could serve as the basis
> for both Tegra and Marvell.
> 
> Given that there are no cross-dependencies for any of the other patches
> (that I'm aware of) it would probably be easier to take them through the
> Marvell tree if Bjorn and Thomas (tglx) agree to Ack the patches.

Ok, this is getting complicated again. :(  I'm all for adhering to
Thomas' (tglx) request that all clocksource and irqchip patches go
through his tree.  However, this series is just a hot-dependency mess.

Thomas, Russell, can you please cut me a little slack on this series and
Ack your respective patches (tglx: #1, #6, #7; rmk: #8) for going
through arm-soc?

I know it's not the proper way, but I could have this series in -next
tomorrow with a public branch for Thierry.  The alternative is turning
into a Rube Goldberg machine [1].

thx,

Jason.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rube_Goldberg_machine