On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 01:04:55PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, September 12, 2013 12:43:02 PM Mika Westerberg wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:31:45AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 12:27:43PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 04:51:20PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > > > > > I would be able to have this and the other patch in the SPI tree in case > > > > > it overlaps with other work - I'm not sure what the plan will be for > > > > > merging this stuff but if there were a branch which I could merge into > > > > > the SPI tree that'd be good. > > > > > > > I think these two can go via your SPI tree as they shouldn't have > > > > dependencies to the I2C tree. > > > > > > There's all the driver changes though - it seems best to push the whole > > > series through one branch so there's fewer bisection problems. > > > > Ah, right. Then I suppose the right tree would be the I2C tree (as majority > > of the patches are I2C related)? > > > > Wolfram, are you OK with this? > > Alternatively, I can apply them too if everyone is OK with that. > > They are PM+ACPI changes after all ... I'd like to give at least an ACK. But I need to find some time for that. Is it urgent? Looks like 3.13 material to me...
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
