From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933937AbbCDKpB (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Mar 2015 05:45:01 -0500 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:55712 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933074AbbCDKo4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Mar 2015 05:44:56 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,687,1418112000"; d="scan'208";a="660242610" Message-ID: <1425465893.14897.163.camel@linux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] x86: pmc_atom: Add Cherrytrail support From: Andy Shevchenko To: "Li, Aubrey" Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J . Wysocki" , "Kumar P, Mahesh" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 12:44:53 +0200 In-Reply-To: <54F52C8E.2050705@linux.intel.com> References: <1421790603-30097-1-git-send-email-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <1424695552.14897.7.camel@linux.intel.com> <54F52C8E.2050705@linux.intel.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 11:37 +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote: > On 2015/2/23 20:45, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Tue, 2015-01-20 at 23:49 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > >> This is the reworked patch series which had been sent earlier [1] to support > >> Intel CherryTrail SoC. > >> > >> The patches were tested on both BayTrail and CherryTrail SoCs. > >> > >> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5235891/ > > > > Aubrey, is everything is clear for you now? Can I send v3 with your > > Ack's? > The patches overall look good to me, except a few minor comments need to > be addressed in the last conversation. For example, I think we don't > need patch 1/4 if we won't use dev_print. We still use them. Like I said the patch has no relations to the series, though it simplifies already existing function. > some other changes might be > necessary only if they makes code cleaner and works better. Thus, I think the patch 1/4 is still useful. > Certainly, it would be better if other x86 maintainers can take a look > at these patches. Agree. -- Andy Shevchenko Intel Finland Oy