From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: kgene.kim@samsung.com (Kukjin Kim)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:50:03 +0900
Subject: [GIT PULL 5/6] Samsung PM updates for v3.15
In-Reply-To: <CAOesGMiqhVk6JYhx=4446E1ZFWy7CrQNsjp8U6jf_De8FzidFw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8259832.260591393840570438.JavaMail.weblogic@epml16>
 <20140309183523.GD22881@quad.lixom.net> <531CFA28.9020600@gmail.com>
 <CAOesGMiqhVk6JYhx=4446E1ZFWy7CrQNsjp8U6jf_De8FzidFw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <01d001cf3ccc$39f339b0$add9ad10$@samsung.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Olof Johansson wrote:
> 
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I don't see a single cc or acked-by line from Mike Turquette here. I'll
> >> hold
> >> off until he's had a chance to take a look at these ones; I suspect
> >> they'll be
> >> fine since it's mostly code refactoring though.
> >
> >
> > I guess I should have ACKed them too, but it felt kind of strange to ACK
> my
> > own patches. ;)
> >
> > Anyway, for all samsung-clk patches:
> >
> > Acked-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
> 
> Yeah, self-acking doesn't make much sense. :)
> 
> I'm mostly worried about patches touching other subsystems without the
> other maintainer being aware of it or having reviewed them. As I said,
> these mostly look like refactorings but it's still good habit.
> 
OK, agreed, I think Mike knew about that though. Let's wait for Mike's
response.

BTW, should I sort out the branch again if Mike gives ack on that?

- Kukjin