On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Nah, I pulled in latest pm-next where this commit is new... >>> >>> commit 8d5666f3456f2fd4a4e5dced228475b829851e53 >>> "ACPI: Unbind ACPI drv when probe failed" >>> >>> ...building with it. >>> >>> Same to you, say concretely which commit is fixing what... >>> >>> Pull-N-B-Happy was never my strategy... I want to understand what went >>> wrong and have stolen my time. >> >> I don't have any pointers to broken tree and so can't point you to the culprit, >> but it was this patch: >> >> http://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=people/vireshk/linux.git;a=commit;h=e034e731f4d9d18ad0401f033f485a3096796c58 >> >> minus >> >> the patch i sent you as attachment. >> >> There were some locking introduced around init/exit of cpufreq_driver, which >> caused some drivers to break. Its fixed now in the above commit. > > Hmm, this "high-patch-maths" is not user-friendly! > > I will pull-in your tree into Linux-Next (next-20130208) and see if it > applies cleanly. > > - Sedat - No, it did NOT apply cleanly and I merged your tree like this. To me it does not look like your changes from the patch you sent me are included? - Sedat -
Attachment:
cpufreq-next.patch
Description: Binary data
