mvebu cpuidle and cpufreq branch handling for v3.17
From: Jason Cooper <hidden>
Date: 2014-07-18 23:07:40
Also in:
linux-pm
Arnd, Olof, Kevin, I have two branches with the remaining mvebu SoC changes for v3.17. They are mvebu/soc-cpuidle and mvebu/soc-cpufreq. Each branch is slightly problematic because both contain changes to their respective code in drivers/. To send the driver changes through the appropriate subsystems would be a garish nightmare of branch on branch on branch. Thankfully, the changes are isolated to drivers only mvebu uses, so keeping it all together should cause minimal, if any, conflicts. I've requested Acks from the appropriate maintainers but as it's summer I'm not confident that we'll receive those Acks in time for the arm-soc cutoff (-rc6 -ish). As I see it, I could send arm-soc two topic branch pull requests, which arm-soc would keep out separate on the remote chance of an objection. Or, I could wait for the Acks (the code has already been in -next for several days), merge it into mvebu/soc, and send a, most likely, late pull request for it. Which would you guys prefer? The cpuidle branch and ML link: git://git.infradead.org/linux-mvebu.git mvebu/soc-cpuidle https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1404913221-17343-1-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni at free-electrons.com The cpufreq branch and ML link: git://git.infradead.org/linux-mvebu.git mvebu/soc-cpufreq https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1404920715-19834-1-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni at free-electrons.com thx, Jason.