From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: grant.likely@secretlab.ca (Grant Likely) Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 18:46:52 +0100 Subject: [GIT PULL] Multi Cluster Power Management infrastructure In-Reply-To: <201304052233.25630.arnd@arndb.de> References: <20130405094159.GH17995@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <201304052233.25630.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 9:33 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday 05 April 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >> >> Now, I'm currently on holiday. I'm going to be on holday until after >> mid-April. I'm not pulling anything until then. I'm not applying anything >> until then. I'm not even reading this mailbox - and given current mail >> rates at 300-400 messages per day, I will *not* be reading back over a >> fortnights worth of email. > > I haven't reviewed the patches before, and only heard of the controversy > from Nico's email yesterday. Independent of your personal situation and > who implemented the code, I think it's clear that a lot of people (not > just Linaro) want to see it get merged and not having it upstream is > blocking platform specific code from getting put into arm-soc. > > Since you are currently on holiday, I think it's best if we at least put > it into asm-soc as a for-rmk/mcpm branch in order to give it coverage > in linux-next and let us merge the dependent platform code into "late" > branches for 3.10. I still hope the nontechnical issues can be resolved > in time to let you pull it into your tree before the merge window. I agree. This makes the most sense. There is no reason for mcpm to be excluded from linux-next before this issue is resolved. g.