[GIT PULL][for 3.17] pull request for hisilicon soc

[Marc Zyngier]

Hi Jason,

On 28/07/14 14:05, Jason Cooper wrote:
> Arnd, Marc,
> 
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 01:35:50PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Sunday 27 July 2014 09:57:22 Haojian Zhuang wrote:
>>> On 26 July 2014 23:30, Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb.de> wrote:
>>>> On Friday 25 July 2014 14:01:20 xuwei wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Haifeng Yan (3):
>>>>>       ARM: debug: Rename Hi3716 to HI5XHD2
>>>>
>>>> This one had me confused for a while, because it seems like
>>>> you are breaking support for hi3xxx, but instead it's just
>>>> a different name for the same chip if I see this right.
>>>>
>>>> An easier approach would actually be to remove DEBUG_HI3716_UART
>>>> completely: the setting is exactly the same for
>>>> HI3716, HI3620 and HIX5HD2, so you can simply keep the name
>>>> for the oldest chip here and change the help text to reflect
>>>> which products it works on.
>>>
>>> The physical address of hi3xxx uart is different from x5hd2.
>>>
>>> Since hi3620 & hix5hd2 could be built into one image. If I don't use the
>>> DEBUG_HIX5HD2_UART to mark, I can't distinguish the right UART
>>> physical address only by ARCH_HI3xxx or ARCH_HIX5HD2.
>>
>> Ah, you are right, I misread the source code. I saw that the
>> virtual address is the same for both but didn't notice that
>> the physical address is not.
>>
>> So this patch is ok after all, please just clarify in the changelog
>> that it is actually the same chip.
>>
>>>> Finally, it's not clear why you need a new Kconfig symbol. It seems
>>>> that all code you have is compiled independent of these, except for
>>>> the dtb files and the DEBUG_LL setting.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually it's nearly same except for headsmp.S.
>>>
>>> Hisilicon guys think that hix5hd2 belongs to another group. They don't
>>> want to totally share their code base with hi3xxx.
>>
>> This doesn't seem like a technical reason to me at all. I would
>> much prefer if you and Xu Wei as maintainers were able to describe
>> (in the changelog) the underlying technical reasons for decisions
>> coming from management if it makes sense, or otherwise explain to
>> them that we don't want those patches upstream if it doesn't make
>> sense.
>>
>> It's not a show-stopper this way, and I'd still pull the branches
>> with this, but you should be aware that it does not help your
>> reputation.
>>
>>>> What happened to HiP04 support? I thought that would arrive
>>>> in time for 3.17.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I just sent v14 in this week. I already updated gic & mcpm according
>>> to comments. But I haven't gotten any comments & Ack yet. So I don't
>>> know whether we could send the pull request of HiP04 in 3.17.
>>
>> I don't see anything beyond v10 in my email, and that had a few
>> outstanding comments but otherwise looked almost ready to me.
>> Can you find out what happened?
> 
> I'd like Marc to review the newest version of the changes to the GIC and
> Ack before I'll pull them in.  He was on vacation up until today.
> You'll be able to pull in a tag on irqchip/gic and base off of that if
> needed.

Which series is the last one? I have a single v14 patch in my Inbox
(01/11, sent on the 23rd), and nothing follows it (and no cover-letter
either).

The archive seems to agree with the state of my Inbox... Did something
go horribly wrong?

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...