From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: kgene.kim@samsung.com (Kukjin Kim) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 04:39:37 +0900 Subject: [GIT PULL 5/6] Samsung PM updates for v3.15 In-Reply-To: <20140319040149.30995.80279@quantum> References: <8259832.260591393840570438.JavaMail.weblogic@epml16> <20140309183523.GD22881@quad.lixom.net> <531CFA28.9020600@gmail.com> <01d001cf3ccc$39f339b0$add9ad10$@samsung.com> <20140319040149.30995.80279@quantum> Message-ID: <532B43F9.9060001@samsung.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 03/19/14 13:01, Mike Turquette wrote: > Quoting Olof Johansson (2014-03-10 19:52:01) >> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Kukjin Kim wrote: >>> 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 >>>> >>>> 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? >> >> If I hear from Mike that he's OK with it then I can merge it, no need to rebase. > Thanks :-) > Acked-by: Mike Turquette > It's time. Please pull this [5/6] and "[GIT PULL 6/6] Samsung clk-s3c24xx updates for v3.15". Thanks, Kukjin