Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] platform/surface: Add platform profile driver for Surface devices

[Hans de Goede]

Hi,

On 2/15/21 4:29 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 4:22 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2/15/21 3:54 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 3:36 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On 2/11/21 9:16 PM, Maximilian Luz wrote:
>>>>> This series adds a driver to provide platform profile support on 5th-
>>>>> and later generation Microsoft Surface devices with a Surface System
>>>>> Aggregator Module. On those devices, the platform profile can be used to
>>>>> influence cooling behavior and power consumption.
>>>>>
>>>>> To achieve this, a new platform profile is introduced: the
>>>>> 'balanced-performance' profile.
>>>>>
>>>>> In addition, a couple of fix-ups are performed:
>>>>> - Hide CONFIG_ACPI_PLATFORM_PROFILE and change drivers so that it is
>>>>>   selected instead of depended on.
>>>>> - Fix some references to documentation in a comment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note: This series (or more specifically "platform/surface: Add platform
>>>>> profile driver") depends on the "platform/surface: Add Surface
>>>>> Aggregator device registry" series.
>>>>>
>>>>> Changes in v2:
>>>>>  - Introduce new 'balanced-performance' platform profile and change
>>>>>    profile mapping in driver.
>>>>>  - Perform some fix-ups for the ACPI platform profile implementation:
>>>>>    - Fix some references to documentation in a comment.
>>>>>    - Hide CONFIG_ACPI_PLATFORM_PROFILE
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, the entire series looks good to me, so for the series:
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> Rafael, can you (once 5.12-rc1 is out) pick 1-3/4 and then provide a
>>>> stable branch for me to merge?
>>>
>>> Since [1-3/4] appear to be uncontroversial, so IMO it would be better
>>> to merge them during the merge window, so they are present in
>>> 5.12-rc1.
>>
>> So I just realized one problem with this plan, patch 1/4 depends
>> on (modifies) Kconfig bits which are only in my tree / my 5.12 pull-req
>> (which I send out earlier today).
> 
> That should be fine.
> 
> I will be sending the first batch of pull requests tomorrow.  Then I
> will wait for them to be merged and I will merge the mainline back at
> that point.  The new patches will be applied on top of that merge, so
> if your 5.12 material is included in it, they should build without
> problems.

Ok, that sounds good to me.

Regards,

Hans