From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lina Iyer Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 0/7] QCOM 8974 and 8084 cpuidle driver Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 09:54:35 -0600 Message-ID: <20141023155435.GA30210@ilina-mac.qualcomm.com> References: <1412718106-17049-1-git-send-email-lina.iyer@linaro.org> <1414078317.4214.4.camel@mm-sol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1414078317.4214.4.camel@mm-sol.com> Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Ivan T. Ivanov" Cc: daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, khilman@linaro.org, sboyd@codeaurora.org, galak@codeaurora.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com, msivasub@codeaurora.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 23 2014 at 09:31 -0600, Ivan T. Ivanov wrote: > >Hi, > >On Tue, 2014-10-07 at 15:41 -0600, Lina Iyer wrote: >> Hi, >> >> This v8 revision of the cpuidle driver is available at >> git.linaro.org:/people/lina.iyer/linux-next cpuidle-v8 >> > >Probably I missing something, but should I expect that >once these patches are applied driver could be successfully > compiled? Yes they should. > >Patches definitely break bisectability. For example [PATCH v8 1/7] >is using which is introduced [PATCH v8 4/7]. > You are right. I missed checking compilation against each patch. Based on some discussion, I need to see if pm.h is even needed. >Regards, >Ivan > >