On 07/03/2012 06:54 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, July 03, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> On 07/03/2012 03:19 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>> Hi Daniel, >>> >>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 14:56:58 +0200 Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>>> So do you have a branch in the cpuidle-next.git tree that isn't going to >>>>> be rebased? >>>> >>>> No. I am following Linus tree and adding the patches on top of it. >>> >>> Please don't rebase your tree more than necessary - it just makes thing >>> hard for anyone using your tree as a base for further development and >>> throws away any testing you may have done. >> >> Ok, let me sync with Len and Rafael about the best way to do that. > > Please create a branch in your tree for me to pull from and let me know > which one it is. Please note that this branch must not be rebased after I've > pulled from it and it's going to be included into my linux-next branch > automatically. Ok that sounds good. Let me put in place the branch and rework my patches because they conflict with the 'disable' flag moved to the per cpu structure. In the meantime, I will send you the other patches which do not conflict. > I'll include it into my v3.6 push, because I have a couple of cpuidle patches > queued up already. We'll need to discuss the future of it after 3.6, though. Ok, cool. Thanks -- Daniel -- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
