Re: [PATCH V15 00/15] irqchip: Add LoongArch-related irqchip drivers

[Huacai Chen]

Hi, Marc,

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 2:43 PM Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 03:38:09 +0100,
> Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Marc,
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 10:43 PM Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, 17 Jul 2022 15:08:14 +0100,
> > > Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi, Marc, Jianmin,
> > > >
> > > > I have an idea but I don't know whether it is acceptable: Marc gives
> > > > an Acked-by for the whole series, then this irqchip series goes
> > > > through the loongarch tree together with the PCI patches, then we
> > > > don't need other hacks except the ACPI definitions.
> > >
> > > Not sure how this solves the original problem. PCI should never be
> > > mandatory (it is actually super useful to be able to build a very
> > > small kernel without too many drivers), and there shouldn't be
> > > configurations where the kernel doesn't build.
> > Now, the pci-loongson controller code (A) is in the PCI tree, the pci
> > enablement code (B) is in the LoongArch tree, and the irqchip code (C)
> > is in the irqchip tree. If the order for upstream is (A) --> (B) -->
> > (C), there will be no build error. My above idea is to make sure the
> > order of (B) and (C) is controlled in the same tree. PCI/MSI is a
> > mandatory requirement for LoongArch, so I want to avoid some
> > unnecessary #ifdefs.
> >
> > >
> > > It is also my own responsibility to merge these things, and I'd rather
> > > not delegate this, specially as it touches a bunch of other
> > > subsystems.
> > I know, this is reasonable. Then if we can control the order of
> > (A)(B)(C) in three trees, the build error can be avoided in the
> > linux-next tree.
>
> This would require stable branches between all three trees, as we
> don't control the *order* of the merges. I'd have to carry (A) and (B)
> as part of (C), which is really over the top.
>
> Just queue a patch to remove the #ifdef once we're at -rc1 and that
> things have settled down. This will be simpler for everyone, and will
> allow everyone to have a clean tree without dragging tons of extra
> patches.
OK, I agree with your decision.

Huacai
>
>         M.
>
> --
> Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.