On Mon, 2013-04-01 at 11:35 +0530, Deepthi Dharwar wrote: > But then, this means we get all the > arch specific code out under drivers/cpuidle > which can be very messy. Not really no. We already have that here or there in other drivers, it's not necessarily messy and the stuff like that can generally be made reasonably self contained. The main issue is that if I (powerpc) wants a fix in my some_ppc_box_idle.c driver, especially if it needs to sync with other arch changes, having to sync/ack with Rafael might complicate things a bit (though not necessarily a lot). I would probably keep the liberty of sending to Linus directly urgent bug/regression fixes to individual cpuidle drivers relating to our archs without waiting every now and then if for example Rafael is on vacation :-) > Also instances where the changes > are specifically tied only to the architecture of the back-end driver > (SoC specific), it is absolutely necessary to get SoC maintainer's > review. Ben. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
