On 24/02/12 17:32, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Hi Marc, > > On 02/24/12 09:24, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> On 24/02/12 17:09, David Brown wrote: >>> I'll keep an eye on it then, and push it into the ARM soc tree when >>> the dependencies are there. >> The whole thing is that there's no dependency. The sched_clock() stuff >> has hit mainline during the merge window. This patch could go in right >> now, without any harm. >> >> What Russell pulled is just a cleanup to convert the last two platforms >> having their own sched_clock() and not relying on our framework. >> >> > > This patch relies on the fact that the HAVE_SCHED_CLOCK config option no > longer exists. We could push it in if the patch had that option added to > the Kconfig, but then it would conflict with the removal of the Kconfig > by 6905a65 (ARM: Make the sched_clock framework mandatory, 2012-01-18). Ah! Indeed, you're perfectly right. > So I guess we send it through the arm-soc tree? I don't think arm-soc tracks rmk/for-next, so this has to go via Russell's tree. I'll take the patch and send Russell another pull request then. Cheers, M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
