mbox

[GIT,PULL] PM / AVS changes for v3.18 - v2

Message ID 7ha95nikqh.fsf@linaro.org
State New
Headers show

Pull-request

git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/khilman/linux.git tags/avs-for-3.18

Message

Kevin Hilman Sept. 25, 2014, 7:05 p.m. UTC
Hi Rafael,

The first pull request was missing a dependency on a feature that went
in through Mark Brown's regulator tree, so it wouldn't actually compile
properly by itself.  This version pulls in that topic branch from Marks
tree (topic/voltage-ev branch, already part of -next), and now compiles fine.

Kevin

The following changes since commit 7d1311b93e58ed55f3a31cc8f94c4b8fe988a2b9:

  Linux 3.17-rc1 (2014-08-16 10:40:26 -0600)

are available in the git repository at:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/khilman/linux.git tags/avs-for-3.18

for you to fetch changes up to cd8caa18deff6d2d87a4e3161b4dd8c6da3c4f38:

  Merge branch 'topic/voltage-ev' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/regulator into avs-next (2014-09-25 09:57:57 -0700)

----------------------------------------------------------------
PM / AVS changes for v3.18

- Add new driver for Rockchip IO voltage domains
- update MAINTAINERS to reflect maintenance of drivers/power/avs/*

----------------------------------------------------------------
Heiko Stübner (2):
      regulator: core: Add REGULATOR_EVENT_PRE_VOLTAGE_CHANGE (and ABORT)
      PM / AVS: rockchip-io: add driver handling Rockchip io domains

Kevin Hilman (2):
      MAINTAINERS: update entry for drivers/power/avs
      Merge branch 'topic/voltage-ev' of git://git.kernel.org/.../broonie/regulator into avs-next

 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/rockchip-io-domain.txt |  83 +++++++++++++++++++
 MAINTAINERS                                                    |   4 +-
 drivers/power/avs/Kconfig                                      |   8 ++
 drivers/power/avs/Makefile                                     |   1 +
 drivers/power/avs/rockchip-io-domain.c                         | 351 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 drivers/regulator/core.c                                       |  63 +++++++++++++--
 include/linux/regulator/consumer.h                             |  20 +++++
 7 files changed, 521 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/rockchip-io-domain.txt
 create mode 100644 drivers/power/avs/rockchip-io-domain.c

Comments

Rafael J. Wysocki Sept. 25, 2014, 8:42 p.m. UTC | #1
On Thursday, September 25, 2014 12:05:42 PM Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
> 
> The first pull request was missing a dependency on a feature that went
> in through Mark Brown's regulator tree, so it wouldn't actually compile
> properly by itself.  This version pulls in that topic branch from Marks
> tree (topic/voltage-ev branch, already part of -next), and now compiles fine.

Pulled, thanks!

I'll push it to Linus after the Mark's material has been merged to avoid
git log confusion.

Rafael


> The following changes since commit 7d1311b93e58ed55f3a31cc8f94c4b8fe988a2b9:
> 
>   Linux 3.17-rc1 (2014-08-16 10:40:26 -0600)
> 
> are available in the git repository at:
> 
>   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/khilman/linux.git tags/avs-for-3.18
> 
> for you to fetch changes up to cd8caa18deff6d2d87a4e3161b4dd8c6da3c4f38:
> 
>   Merge branch 'topic/voltage-ev' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/regulator into avs-next (2014-09-25 09:57:57 -0700)
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> PM / AVS changes for v3.18
> 
> - Add new driver for Rockchip IO voltage domains
> - update MAINTAINERS to reflect maintenance of drivers/power/avs/*
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Heiko Stübner (2):
>       regulator: core: Add REGULATOR_EVENT_PRE_VOLTAGE_CHANGE (and ABORT)
>       PM / AVS: rockchip-io: add driver handling Rockchip io domains
> 
> Kevin Hilman (2):
>       MAINTAINERS: update entry for drivers/power/avs
>       Merge branch 'topic/voltage-ev' of git://git.kernel.org/.../broonie/regulator into avs-next
> 
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/rockchip-io-domain.txt |  83 +++++++++++++++++++
>  MAINTAINERS                                                    |   4 +-
>  drivers/power/avs/Kconfig                                      |   8 ++
>  drivers/power/avs/Makefile                                     |   1 +
>  drivers/power/avs/rockchip-io-domain.c                         | 351 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  drivers/regulator/core.c                                       |  63 +++++++++++++--
>  include/linux/regulator/consumer.h                             |  20 +++++
>  7 files changed, 521 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/rockchip-io-domain.txt
>  create mode 100644 drivers/power/avs/rockchip-io-domain.c
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Mark Brown Sept. 26, 2014, 8:15 a.m. UTC | #2
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 12:05:42PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:

> The first pull request was missing a dependency on a feature that went
> in through Mark Brown's regulator tree, so it wouldn't actually compile
> properly by itself.  This version pulls in that topic branch from Marks
> tree (topic/voltage-ev branch, already part of -next), and now compiles fine.

Please in future don't pull anything in from my tree without a signed
tag (speak to me if there isn't one).
Rafael J. Wysocki Sept. 26, 2014, 1:40 p.m. UTC | #3
On Friday, September 26, 2014 09:15:34 AM Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> --gBii9oQw/U9UOygZ
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Disposition: inline
> 
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 12:05:42PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> 
> > The first pull request was missing a dependency on a feature that went
> > in through Mark Brown's regulator tree, so it wouldn't actually compile
> > properly by itself.  This version pulls in that topic branch from Marks
> > tree (topic/voltage-ev branch, already part of -next), and now compiles fine.
> 
> Please in future don't pull anything in from my tree without a signed
> tag (speak to me if there isn't one).

I was assuming that this was discussed with you in advance.

Should I drop the branch?

Rafael
Kevin Hilman Sept. 26, 2014, 2:23 p.m. UTC | #4
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> writes:

> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 12:05:42PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>
>> The first pull request was missing a dependency on a feature that went
>> in through Mark Brown's regulator tree, so it wouldn't actually compile
>> properly by itself.  This version pulls in that topic branch from Marks
>> tree (topic/voltage-ev branch, already part of -next), and now compiles fine.
>
> Please in future don't pull anything in from my tree without a signed
> tag (speak to me if there isn't one).

Sorry about that.

Had there been more than one patch in this topic branch, or it wasn't
based directly on an -rc tag, I would've waited for confirmation about
it being stable, but since it was a single patch, based directly on an
-rc tag, I assumed it was stable.

In the future, I'll be sure to request a signed tag.

Kevin
Kevin Hilman Sept. 26, 2014, 3:42 p.m. UTC | #5
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 7:23 AM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@kernel.org> wrote:
> Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> writes:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 12:05:42PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>>
>>> The first pull request was missing a dependency on a feature that went
>>> in through Mark Brown's regulator tree, so it wouldn't actually compile
>>> properly by itself.  This version pulls in that topic branch from Marks
>>> tree (topic/voltage-ev branch, already part of -next), and now compiles fine.
>>
>> Please in future don't pull anything in from my tree without a signed
>> tag (speak to me if there isn't one).
>
> Sorry about that.
>
> Had there been more than one patch in this topic branch, or it wasn't
> based directly on an -rc tag, I would've waited for confirmation about
> it being stable, but since it was a single patch, based directly on an
> -rc tag, I assumed it was stable.
>
> In the future, I'll be sure to request a signed tag.

Hmm, turns out there actually was a signed tag[1] (I thought I
remembered you saying it was stable), but I still made the mistake of
pulling the branch and not the tag.

Kevin

[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/8/29/182