Re: [GIT PULL] USB patches for next merge window

[Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1850 bytes --]

Hi,

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:52:45AM +0300, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> [110523 11:11]:
> > On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 10:15:15AM +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
> > > On Mon, 23 May 2011 09:14:38 +0300
> > > Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > a gentle ping here too. Without this we will have regressions on
> > > > ehci/ohci as the pm_runtime patches have gone in via Samuel.
> > > > 
> > > Does this mean that those regressions happened already when those
> > > patches were made if there is pull request dependency?
> > 
> > not really, no.
> > 
> > > Remember bisectability is important. And very important if you are
> > > bisecting something else but which is dependent on this as then you
> > > could mark wrong good/bad points or not able to determine.
> > 
> > True, true... I just wanted to avoid conflicts as much as possible so
> > arch/arm/*omap*/ goes through Tony, and drivers/mfd/* goes through
> > Samuel.
> > 
> > pm_rutime and hwmod conversion aren't really that tightly coupled. As
> > long as the arch code is in place, we can do pm_runtime at any time. Not
> > sure if it's true the other way around. But one thing is for sure, if
> > this pull request isn't taken, then I guess clocks won't enable on
> > omap-usbhs...
> 
> Looks like these patches are missing acks from Benoit and Paul?
> I'd rather not pull them in without the acks. Note that we have
> a very short merge window this time, so let's see if we can still
> get them in.

Ok... let's see if they'll Ack the patches which have been floating
around. [1], [2] and [3] are the patches which need Ack.

[1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=130512838504191&w=2
[2] http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=130512862104681&w=2
[3] http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=130512812503806&w=2

-- 
balbi

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]