From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux)
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 08:27:53 +0100
Subject: S5PC110 should be used the correct VIC number
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinC_68244EXf2jcEQN8zur8Dff5AcVjA+UTiNPX@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikh7mt30gEQU0_Wr7n-jZrG0iUmd1Hw17Ni7UNQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<009d01cb2e1a$29605e80$7c211b80$%kim@samsung.com>
	<AANLkTinC_68244EXf2jcEQN8zur8Dff5AcVjA+UTiNPX@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20100728072753.GC29277@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 04:25:16PM +0900, Kyungmin Park wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> wrote:
> > Kyungmin Park wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Ben,
> >>
> >> Can you post the VIC patch from correct VIC number from vic code at
> >> suspend & resume?
> >> If not, it has to modify it after release. or can you fix it as below.
> >>
> > Yeah, you're right.
> >
> > Already reported by Ben Dooks...but missed that.
> > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2010-June/016872.html
> 
> I think ben's patch solves all of problems.
> 
> Russell, can you pull it from ben's tree?

When and only when Ben sends me a pull request.