On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 12:25:59 AM Kukjin Kim wrote: > On 04/05/13 20:36, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Friday, April 05, 2013 12:36:34 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > >> On 5 April 2013 12:18, Kukjin Kim<kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> Basically, this moving looks good to me, but should be re-worked based on > >>> for-next of samsung tree because this touches too many samsung stuff so this > >>> should be sent to upstream via samsung tree. > >> > >> Hmm... Its already applied in Rafael's tree. But it doesn't mean that > >> it can't be > >> moved to your tree if there is a issue. > > > > Well, I'm dropping it. Please merge via the Samsung tree. > > > > Oops, I missed, maybe I have no more chance to send this to upstream for > upcoming merge window :-( > > Rafael, please take this patch with my ack in your tree, sorry for noise. > > Acked-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > If any problems, please kindly let me know. Well, I suppose I can take the original patch, but then it will conflict with your tree during merge. Is that not a problem? Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- 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
