On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 10:15:15AM +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote: > On Mon, 23 May 2011 09:14:38 +0300 > Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > a gentle ping here too. Without this we will have regressions on > > ehci/ohci as the pm_runtime patches have gone in via Samuel. > > > Does this mean that those regressions happened already when those > patches were made if there is pull request dependency? not really, no. > Remember bisectability is important. And very important if you are > bisecting something else but which is dependent on this as then you > could mark wrong good/bad points or not able to determine. True, true... I just wanted to avoid conflicts as much as possible so arch/arm/*omap*/ goes through Tony, and drivers/mfd/* goes through Samuel. pm_rutime and hwmod conversion aren't really that tightly coupled. As long as the arch code is in place, we can do pm_runtime at any time. Not sure if it's true the other way around. But one thing is for sure, if this pull request isn't taken, then I guess clocks won't enable on omap-usbhs... -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
