On 07/03/2012 06:54 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

On Tuesday, July 03, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote:

quoted

On 07/03/2012 03:19 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

quoted

Hi Daniel,

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 14:56:58 +0200 Daniel Lezcano [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

So do you have a branch in the cpuidle-next.git tree that isn't going to
be rebased?

No. I am following Linus tree and adding the patches on top of it.

Please don't rebase your tree more than necessary - it just makes thing
hard for anyone using your tree as a base for further development and
throws away any testing you may have done.

Ok, let me sync with Len and Rafael about the best way to do that.

Please create a branch in your tree for me to pull from and let me know
which one it is.  Please note that this branch must not be rebased after I've
pulled from it and it's going to be included into my linux-next branch
automatically.

Ok that sounds good.

Let me put in place the branch and rework my patches because they
conflict with the 'disable' flag moved to the per cpu structure.
In the meantime, I will send you the other patches which do not conflict.

I'll include it into my v3.6 push, because I have a couple of cpuidle patches
queued up already.  We'll need to discuss the future of it after 3.6, though.

Ok, cool.

Thanks
  -- Daniel


-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog