Re: [PATCH 10/10] mach-ux500: update and move cpufreq driver

[Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>]

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:02:14AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
 > 2011/5/10 Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>:
 > 
 > > Haven't had chance to really read much patches the last few days
 > > (travelling until the 16th).  Due to the patch collisions we'll keep
 > > seeing on kconfig/Makefiles, should these go via the cpufreq tree,
 > > or do people want to still push them through their respective arch trees ?
 > 
 > I pushed a patch series yesterday that basically deactivates the
 > cpufreq driver in the mach-ux500, moves it over to drivers/cpufreq,
 > updates it, then reactivates it in the new place with a patch to
 > the Makefile.

Just got back from travelling, so I'm buried under mail backlog right now.
The only one that jumped out was the one I was cc'd on
([PATCH 10/10] mach-ux500: update and move cpufreq driver).

 > Of these changes only the last patch will collide with your tree,
 > so I pushed all of them except that one to linux-next.
 > 
 > The last patch I plan to submit to Torvalds directly after both
 > trees have gone into the merge window.
 > 
 > Can you please look into this and ACK the patches if they
 > seem OK?

The patch that moves the driver over looked ok to me, so feel free
to add my acked-by to it.

>From the look of things, the Kconfig is staying under arch/arm for now ?

thanks,

	Dave