On Wed, Jul 2, 2025, at 14:46, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 02, 2025 at 12:40:19PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 12:26:11 +0200
>> Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> > The GICv5 CPU interface implements support for PE-Private Peripheral
>> > Interrupts (PPI), that are handled (enabled/prioritized/delivered)
>> > entirely within the CPU interface hardware.
>>
>> I can't remember where I got to last time so if I repeat stuff that
>> you already responded to, feel free to just ignore me this time ;)
>>
>> All superficial stuff. Feel free to completely ignore if you like.
>
> We are at v6.16-rc4, series has been on the lists for 3 months, it has
> been reviewed and we would like to get it into v6.17 if possible and
> deemed reasonable, I am asking you folks please, what should I do ?
>
> I can send a v7 with the changes requested below (no bug fixes there)
> - it is fine by me - but I need to know please asap if we have a
> plan to get this upstream this cycle.
I think the priority right now should be to get the series into
linux-next, as there is a good chance that the added regression
testing will uncover some problem that you should fix.
I had another look at all your patches, mainly to see how much
of them actually change existing code, and there is thankfully
very little of that. Without actual gicv5 hardware implementations
there is very low risk in adding the new driver as well: anything
that still comes up can be fixed on top of v6 or a v7 if you send
it again.
I assume that Thomas will make this a separate branch in the tip
tree, given the size of the series. If he still wants to wait for
more feedback or changes before adding it to tip, I would suggest
you ask Stephen to add your latest branch to linux-next in the
meantime.
Arnd
