Hi, On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:52:45AM +0300, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> [110523 11:11]: > > 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... > > Looks like these patches are missing acks from Benoit and Paul? > I'd rather not pull them in without the acks. Note that we have > a very short merge window this time, so let's see if we can still > get them in. Ok... let's see if they'll Ack the patches which have been floating around. [1], [2] and [3] are the patches which need Ack. [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=130512838504191&w=2 [2] http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=130512862104681&w=2 [3] http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=130512812503806&w=2 -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
