From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Will Deacon Subject: Re: Request for additional arm64 branch in linux-next Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 17:35:52 +0100 Message-ID: <20150428163552.GB14963@arm.com> References: <20150325172002.GN24636@arm.com> <20150326111055.273aa644@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:59624 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030365AbbD1Qf4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Apr 2015 12:35:56 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150326111055.273aa644@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Catalin Marinas , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Lorenzo Pieralisi , "grant.likely@linaro.org" , "rjw@rjwysocki.net" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "hanjun.guo@linaro.org" , "al.stone@linaro.org" , "graeme.gregory@linaro.org" , "msalter@redhat.com" On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:10:55AM +0000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Will, Hi again Stephen, > On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 17:20:03 +0000 Will Deacon wrote: > > > > We've got a series of patches introducing ACPI support for arm64 that > > are tentatively targetting the 4.1 merge window. Whilst there are > > face-to-face discussions set to happen in the next day or so around this > > topic, could you please pull this into linux-next under the assumption > > that we decide to go ahead for mainline inclusion? > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm64/linux.git for-next/acpi > > > > I've kept the series separate from the usual arm64 branch (for-next/core) > > but they merge without conflicts. Merging with today's next, I see two > > trivial Kconfig conflicts (resolution below). > > Added from today (and thanks for the hints). Will this be merged via > another tree, or go directly to Linus? > > > I'll let you know when the branch is no longer needed. > > Excellent. Just to say that, since the ACPI support code for arm64 was merged in the recent merge window, this branch is no longer required and can be dropped from linux-next. Thanks, Will From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 17:35:52 +0100 Subject: Request for additional arm64 branch in linux-next In-Reply-To: <20150326111055.273aa644@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20150325172002.GN24636@arm.com> <20150326111055.273aa644@canb.auug.org.au> Message-ID: <20150428163552.GB14963@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:10:55AM +0000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Will, Hi again Stephen, > On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 17:20:03 +0000 Will Deacon wrote: > > > > We've got a series of patches introducing ACPI support for arm64 that > > are tentatively targetting the 4.1 merge window. Whilst there are > > face-to-face discussions set to happen in the next day or so around this > > topic, could you please pull this into linux-next under the assumption > > that we decide to go ahead for mainline inclusion? > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm64/linux.git for-next/acpi > > > > I've kept the series separate from the usual arm64 branch (for-next/core) > > but they merge without conflicts. Merging with today's next, I see two > > trivial Kconfig conflicts (resolution below). > > Added from today (and thanks for the hints). Will this be merged via > another tree, or go directly to Linus? > > > I'll let you know when the branch is no longer needed. > > Excellent. Just to say that, since the ACPI support code for arm64 was merged in the recent merge window, this branch is no longer required and can be dropped from linux-next. Thanks, Will