From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Detect hwmon and i2c bus drivers interfering with ACPI Operation Region resources Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:57:23 -0700 Message-ID: <20071024205723.458fab97.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <1193236319.4590.225.camel@queen.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:36932 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758638AbXJYD5r (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Oct 2007 23:57:47 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1193236319.4590.225.camel@queen.suse.de> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: trenn@suse.de Cc: linux-acpi , linux-kernel , Len Brown , Jean Delvare On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:31:59 +0200 Thomas Renninger wrote: > it seems Len's test tree and Linus tree diverged a bit, at least with > this patch set things do not apply cleanly. > > Therefore I post these for discussion whether and in which kernel tree > they should end up before doing work for nothing. > If they are still a candidate for 2.6.24 (rather unintrusive), pls tell > me whether and when I should base them against Len's test/release branch > or whatever other tree. > If not, it would be great if they can be included into the -mm tree and > I can rebase them against this one. I staged the three acpi patches against Len's tree and I staged the hwmon patch against Mark's tree and I staged the I2C patch against Jean's tree. This means that if/when the ACPI patches have gone me->Len->Linus, I can send the I2C patch to Jean and the hwmon patch to Mark and we're all good.