| Message ID | 010a01cce7e2$438f6d40$caae47c0$%kim@samsung.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
Hi, On Friday, February 10, 2012, Kukjin Kim wrote: > Hi Arnd, Olof, > > Please pull samsung exynos pm domains. > > It has been merged into linux-pm tree by Rafael and I think it should be > pulled into arm-soc. No, this doesn't work like this. A single patchset is not expected to be present in two different trees at a time. Thanks, Rafael
On Friday 10 February 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, February 10, 2012, Kukjin Kim wrote: > > Hi Arnd, Olof, > > > > Please pull samsung exynos pm domains. > > > > It has been merged into linux-pm tree by Rafael and I think it should be > > pulled into arm-soc. > > No, this doesn't work like this. A single patchset is not expected to be > present in two different trees at a time. We've been doing this for a number of other branches and I see nothing wrong with this approach as long as we can rely on both trees not to rebase the patches so the commit IDs remain stable. Rafael, do you want to keep the option of rebasing the patches that you got from Kukjin? If your workflow requires that, I can't take them, but if you can guarantee that the branch you have pulled them into is stable, I would prefer to pull it into a branch of arm-soc so that we can have other branches based on that where needed to avoid conflicts. Arnd
On Saturday, February 11, 2012, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday 10 February 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Friday, February 10, 2012, Kukjin Kim wrote: > > > Hi Arnd, Olof, > > > > > > Please pull samsung exynos pm domains. > > > > > > It has been merged into linux-pm tree by Rafael and I think it should be > > > pulled into arm-soc. > > > > No, this doesn't work like this. A single patchset is not expected to be > > present in two different trees at a time. > > We've been doing this for a number of other branches and I see nothing wrong > with this approach as long as we can rely on both trees not to rebase the > patches so the commit IDs remain stable. > > Rafael, do you want to keep the option of rebasing the patches that you > got from Kukjin? No, I'm not going to rebase them. > If your workflow requires that, I can't take them, but > if you can guarantee that the branch you have pulled them into is stable, > I would prefer to pull it into a branch of arm-soc so that we can have > other branches based on that where needed to avoid conflicts. OK, the relevant branch is linux-pm/pm-domains and it won't be rebased. Please feel free to pull from it. Thanks, Rafael
On Friday 10 February 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Rafael, do you want to keep the option of rebasing the patches that you > > got from Kukjin? > > No, I'm not going to rebase them. Ok, very good! > > If your workflow requires that, I can't take them, but > > if you can guarantee that the branch you have pulled them into is stable, > > I would prefer to pull it into a branch of arm-soc so that we can have > > other branches based on that where needed to avoid conflicts. > > OK, the relevant branch is linux-pm/pm-domains and it won't be rebased. > Please feel free to pull from it. Thanks, Arnd
On 02/12/12 01:50, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday 10 February 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> Rafael, do you want to keep the option of rebasing the patches that you >>> got from Kukjin? >> >> No, I'm not going to rebase them. > > Ok, very good! > >>> If your workflow requires that, I can't take them, but >>> if you can guarantee that the branch you have pulled them into is stable, >>> I would prefer to pull it into a branch of arm-soc so that we can have >>> other branches based on that where needed to avoid conflicts. >> >> OK, the relevant branch is linux-pm/pm-domains and it won't be rebased. >> Please feel free to pull from it. > > Thanks, Rafael, Arnd, Thank you, too :) Best regards, Kgene. -- Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>, Senior Engineer, SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
Hi Arnd, Olof, Please pull samsung exynos pm domains. It has been merged into linux-pm tree by Rafael and I think it should be pulled into arm-soc. Following is regarding reply about that. http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2012-February/082909.h tml If any problems, please kindly let me know. Thanks. Best regards, Kgene. -- Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>, Senior Engineer, SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. The following changes since commit 62aa2b537c6f5957afd98e29f96897419ed5ebab: Linux 3.3-rc2 (2012-01-31 13:31:54 -0800) are available in the git repository at: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kgene/linux-samsung.git v3.4-for-rafael Thomas Abraham (2): PM / Domains: Add OF support ARM: EXYNOS: Hook up power domains to generic power domain infrastructure .../bindings/arm/exynos/power_domain.txt | 21 ++ arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig | 10 +- arch/arm/mach-exynos/Makefile | 2 +- arch/arm/mach-exynos/dev-pd.c | 139 -------------- arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-nuri.c | 11 - arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-origen.c | 14 -- arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-smdkv310.c | 12 -- arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-universal_c210.c | 17 -- arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm_domains.c | 195 ++++++++++++++++++++ drivers/base/power/domain.c | 32 ++++ include/linux/pm_domain.h | 12 ++ 11 files changed, 262 insertions(+), 203 deletions(-) create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/exynos/power_domain.txt delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-exynos/dev-pd.c create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm_domains.c