On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 12:45:10PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 10:58:11AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 06:55:05PM +0900, Kyungmin Park wrote: > > > > > Instead of samsung tree, it should be handled at cpufreq tree. > > > CCed the cpufreq maintainer. > > > > Well, it's a something for both really as both trees are updated. I > > sent the orginal copy of this patch to both places but both sets of > > maintainers just ignored it (I've never seen any response from the > > cpufreq maintainers on this driver ever since I originally submitted > > it). > > Sorry about that. It's actually in my 'to merge' mailbox, but I've been > laggy at dealing with it recently. I'll try and clear the backlog in > the next day or two. Ok, I finally got around to sorting this out. It needed some small changes to fix up rejects in drivers/cpufreq/Makefile, but they looked trivial enough that I'm sure they're ok. But look them over anyway ? I also applied the S5PV210/EXYNOS4210 patch which also needed the same fixing. Both pushed out to cpufreq.next Let me know if there's anything I've missed thanks, Dave -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
