Re: [PATCH 0/4] power: avs: Move drivers to the soc directories and drop avs

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Wednesday, October 21, 2020 12:41:50 PM CEST Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 at 18:30, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 5:23 PM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > + Arnd
> > >
> > > On Wed, 7 Oct 2020 at 17:09, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 6:05 PM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The avs drivers in drivers/power/avs/* are all SoC specific drivers that
> > > > > doesn't share any code. Instead they are located in a directory, mostly to keep
> > > > > similar functionality together. From a maintenance point of view, it makes
> > > > > better sense to collect SoC specific drivers like these, into the SoC specific
> > > > > directories.
> > > > >
> > > > > Therefore, this series moves the drivers, one by one - and in the end, it
> > > > > deletes the empty avs directory.
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems best to me, if this can be funneled via Rafael's linux-pm tree. Then
> > > > > when going forward, each driver should be managed through the SoC maintainer's
> > > > > trees.
> > > >
> > > > That's fine by me.
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to get an ACK from the arm-soc side on this, though.
> > >
> > > I have looped in Arnd, to get his opinion on this.
> > >
> > > Although, I think the people on cc already send pull requests to the
> > > arm-soc maintainers (or perhaps it was these people you were referring
> > > to), so just awaiting their acks should be fine, I guess.
> >
> > OK
> >
> > For now, I've taken patches [2-3/4] that have been ACKed.
> >
> > When the [1/4] is ACKed, I'll take it too and apply the last one.
> 
> Patch 1/4 has been acked now as well, so I think the remaining part of
> this series is ready to go.

Agreed, I'm going to apply the remaining two patches from it tomorrow.

> However, I noticed that Stephen Rothwell reported some merge conflicts
> for arm-soc in linux-next. Quite trivial to resolve, though. Perhaps
> an option to consider is to send this as material for v5.10-rc1 (or
> maybe rc2) to avoid further conflicts during this release cycle? Just
> an idea..

Yes, I'm going to do that.

Thanks!