From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 08:40:46 +0100 Subject: [PATCHv2] omap2+: pm: cpufreq: Fix loops_per_jiffy calculation In-Reply-To: References: <1308923618-5333-1-git-send-email-premi@ti.com> <20110624140142.GM9449@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20110624141402.GN9449@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20110624151201.GO9449@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <4E04DBF8.1050401@ti.com> <20110625190922.GA7736@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20110627074046.GA1777@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 10:24:43AM +0530, Premi, Sanjeev wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Russell King - ARM Linux [mailto:linux at arm.linux.org.uk] > > Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 12:39 AM > > To: Premi, Sanjeev > > Cc: Shilimkar, Santosh; linux-omap at vger.kernel.org; > > linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org; Hilman, Kevin > > Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] omap2+: pm: cpufreq: Fix > > loops_per_jiffy calculation > > > > On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 12:23:31AM +0530, Premi, Sanjeev wrote: > > > [sp] I thought we were solving a problem - but this makes it > > > look like race for addding sign-offs - which I am not > > > interested in. > > > > No, it's called packaging the patch up and getting it ready, > > putting it > > out on the list for people to test and provide Tested-by's, acked-by's > > etc. > > [sp] Agree. > > > > > Would you rather people sat on fixes doing nothing with them for a > > month instead, watching broken -rc after broken -rc going by? > > > [sp] The original patch was just few hours ago... not month(s). I fail to see what the problem is you're referring to.