Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] irqchip: stm32: Optimizes and cleans up stm32-exti irq_domain

From: Ludovic BARRE
Date: Fri Apr 20 2018 - 03:19:05 EST

ok, So I include your patch in my serie
- irqchip: stm32: Optimizes and cleans up stm32-exti irq_domain


On 04/19/2018 10:03 PM, RadosÅaw Pietrzyk wrote:
Sure, I don't mind. I didn't have time to resend v3 with more verbose description.

2018-04-19 15:24 GMT+02:00 Ludovic BARRE <ludovic.barre@xxxxxx <mailto:ludovic.barre@xxxxxx>>:

Hi Radoslaw

I preparing a patch serie which add support of stm32mp1.
Would you like, I add your patch (with commit message updated)
in my serie?
-irqchip: stm32: Optimizes and cleans up stm32-exti irq_domain


On 03/14/2018 01:04 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:

On 14/03/18 11:46, RadosÅaw Pietrzyk wrote:

Hi Marc,
We had a quite fruitful discussion in this mail thread
regarding this
topic and Ludovic acked it so recently I have asked Thomas
if he still
needs this v3 patch with detailed explanation especially as
v2 version
of stm32-gpio patch has been already taken by Linus. However
if you
require I can resend v3 of this patch only with this
detailed explanation.

That'd be useful. The changelog is the only thing that will be
left from
this discussion, so it'd better be complete and accurate. If you
send a v3 for this single patch, I'll queue it right away.



2018-03-14 12:09 GMT+01:00 Marc Zyngier
<marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx <mailto:marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx>
<mailto:marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx <mailto:marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx>>>:


  ÂOn 23/02/18 08:42, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
  Â> Radoslaw,
  Â> On Fri, 23 Feb 2018, Radoslaw Pietrzyk wrote:
  Â>> - discards setting handle_simple_irq handler for
hierarchy interrupts
  Â>> - removes acking in chained irq handler as this is
done by
  Â>> irq_chip itself inside handle_edge_irq
  Â>> - removes unneeded irq_domain_ops.xlate callback
  Â> if that's all functionally correct, then this is a
nice cleanup. Though
  Â> from the above changelog its hard to tell because it
merily tells WHAT the
  Â> patch does, but not WHY. The WHY is the important
information for a
  Â> reviewer who is not familiar with the particular
piece of code/hardware.
  Â> Can you please amend the changelog with proper
explanations why a
  Â> particular piece of code is not needed or has to be
changed to something
  Â> else?

  ÂAny update on this? I'd like to queue this for 4.17,
but Thomas'
  Âcomments should be addressed before that happens. Ca
you please respin a
  Âversion with a better change log and the various
review tags?


  Â    M.
  ÂJazz is not dead. It just smells funny...