| Message ID | 52012049.7060605@arm.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
Hi Rob, On 06/08/13 17:11, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote: > Hi Rob, > > The following changes since commit c095ba7224d8edc71dcef0d655911399a8bd4a3f: > > Linux 3.11-rc4 (2013-08-04 13:46:46 -0700) > > are available in the git repository at: > > git://linux-arm.org/linux-skn.git cpu_ofnode_dt > > for you to fetch changes up to d7b5133478afd9e66a338d3125bc37b9a250ef66: > > of/device: add helper to get cpu device node from logical cpu index > (2013-08-06 16:37:15 +0100) > I was not sure whom to send pull request(you or Grant). This needs to be pulled in and present in linux-next before I can send the updates in SoC and cpufreq which depends on this. Regards, Sudeep > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Sudeep KarkadaNagesha (4): > of: add support for retrieving cpu node for a given logical cpu index > ARM: DT/kernel: define ARM specific arch_match_cpu_phys_id > driver/core: cpu: initialize of_node in cpu's device struture > of/device: add helper to get cpu device node from logical cpu index > > arch/arm/kernel/devtree.c | 5 +++++ > drivers/base/cpu.c | 2 ++ > drivers/of/base.c | 73 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > include/linux/cpu.h | 1 + > include/linux/of.h | 6 ++++++ > include/linux/of_device.h | 15 +++++++++++++++ > 6 files changed, 102 insertions(+) > > PS: This is DT part of the patch series reviewed and acknowledged @ > > v1: > http://archive.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/message/20130715.102201.dfb8e04e.fr.html > v2: > http://archive.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/message/20130717.140609.07fa6237.fr.html > v3: > http://archive.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/message/20130722.113211.b5e3bc2a.fr.html > > > Regards, > Sudeep >
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com> wrote: > Hi Rob, > > On 06/08/13 17:11, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote: >> Hi Rob, >> >> The following changes since commit c095ba7224d8edc71dcef0d655911399a8bd4a3f: >> >> Linux 3.11-rc4 (2013-08-04 13:46:46 -0700) >> >> are available in the git repository at: >> >> git://linux-arm.org/linux-skn.git cpu_ofnode_dt >> >> for you to fetch changes up to d7b5133478afd9e66a338d3125bc37b9a250ef66: >> >> of/device: add helper to get cpu device node from logical cpu index >> (2013-08-06 16:37:15 +0100) >> > > I was not sure whom to send pull request(you or Grant). > This needs to be pulled in and present in linux-next before I can send > the updates in SoC and cpufreq which depends on this. With necessary acks, you don't need send these to 3 maintainers. I would suggest you send the whole series to cpufreq maintainers to merge rather than have them try to manage 2 dependent branches. Also, something landing in linux-next has no bearing on the process. If you do have dependent branches in another tree, then you need to insure with that maintainer that the branch is stable and inform the 2nd maintainer of the dependency on the branch. Rob > > Regards, > Sudeep > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> Sudeep KarkadaNagesha (4): >> of: add support for retrieving cpu node for a given logical cpu index >> ARM: DT/kernel: define ARM specific arch_match_cpu_phys_id >> driver/core: cpu: initialize of_node in cpu's device struture >> of/device: add helper to get cpu device node from logical cpu index >> >> arch/arm/kernel/devtree.c | 5 +++++ >> drivers/base/cpu.c | 2 ++ >> drivers/of/base.c | 73 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> include/linux/cpu.h | 1 + >> include/linux/of.h | 6 ++++++ >> include/linux/of_device.h | 15 +++++++++++++++ >> 6 files changed, 102 insertions(+) >> >> PS: This is DT part of the patch series reviewed and acknowledged @ >> >> v1: >> http://archive.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/message/20130715.102201.dfb8e04e.fr.html >> v2: >> http://archive.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/message/20130717.140609.07fa6237.fr.html >> v3: >> http://archive.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/message/20130722.113211.b5e3bc2a.fr.html >> >> >> Regards, >> Sudeep >> > >
On 08/08/13 16:27, Rob Herring wrote: > On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha > <Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com> wrote: >> Hi Rob, >> >> On 06/08/13 17:11, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote: >>> Hi Rob, >>> >>> The following changes since commit c095ba7224d8edc71dcef0d655911399a8bd4a3f: >>> >>> Linux 3.11-rc4 (2013-08-04 13:46:46 -0700) >>> >>> are available in the git repository at: >>> >>> git://linux-arm.org/linux-skn.git cpu_ofnode_dt >>> >>> for you to fetch changes up to d7b5133478afd9e66a338d3125bc37b9a250ef66: >>> >>> of/device: add helper to get cpu device node from logical cpu index >>> (2013-08-06 16:37:15 +0100) >>> >> >> I was not sure whom to send pull request(you or Grant). >> This needs to be pulled in and present in linux-next before I can send >> the updates in SoC and cpufreq which depends on this. > > With necessary acks, you don't need send these to 3 maintainers. I > would suggest you send the whole series to cpufreq maintainers to > merge rather than have them try to manage 2 dependent branches. > > Also, something landing in linux-next has no bearing on the process. > If you do have dependent branches in another tree, then you need to > insure with that maintainer that the branch is stable and inform the > 2nd maintainer of the dependency on the branch. > Thanks Rob for clarifying. Hi Rafael, The complete series[1] was reviewed and acknowledged by appropriate maintainers. Since most of the changes are CPUFreq clean-ups, would you take the complete series through your tree ? On which branch(bleeding-edge or linux-next) on [2] do I need to base my pull request ? Regards, Sudeep [1] http://archive.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/message/20130722.113211.b5e3bc2a.fr.html [2] git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git
On 08/08/13 16:49, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote: > On 08/08/13 16:27, Rob Herring wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha >> <Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com> wrote: >>> Hi Rob, >>> >>> On 06/08/13 17:11, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote: >>>> Hi Rob, >>>> >>>> The following changes since commit c095ba7224d8edc71dcef0d655911399a8bd4a3f: >>>> >>>> Linux 3.11-rc4 (2013-08-04 13:46:46 -0700) >>>> >>>> are available in the git repository at: >>>> >>>> git://linux-arm.org/linux-skn.git cpu_ofnode_dt >>>> >>>> for you to fetch changes up to d7b5133478afd9e66a338d3125bc37b9a250ef66: >>>> >>>> of/device: add helper to get cpu device node from logical cpu index >>>> (2013-08-06 16:37:15 +0100) >>>> >>> >>> I was not sure whom to send pull request(you or Grant). >>> This needs to be pulled in and present in linux-next before I can send >>> the updates in SoC and cpufreq which depends on this. >> >> With necessary acks, you don't need send these to 3 maintainers. I >> would suggest you send the whole series to cpufreq maintainers to >> merge rather than have them try to manage 2 dependent branches. >> >> Also, something landing in linux-next has no bearing on the process. >> If you do have dependent branches in another tree, then you need to >> insure with that maintainer that the branch is stable and inform the >> 2nd maintainer of the dependency on the branch. >> > > Thanks Rob for clarifying. > > Hi Rafael, > > The complete series[1] was reviewed and acknowledged by appropriate > maintainers. > > Since most of the changes are CPUFreq clean-ups, would you take the > complete series through your tree ? > > On which branch(bleeding-edge or linux-next) on [2] do I need to base my > pull request ? Hi Rafael, Can you please let which know which branch do you prefer to base the my request on ? Regards, Sudeep > > [1] > http://archive.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/message/20130722.113211.b5e3bc2a.fr.html > > [2] git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git >
On 12 August 2013 14:24, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com> wrote: > Can you please let which know which branch do you prefer to base the my > request on ? Unless you have any dependencies, you must rebase on latest RC..
On Monday, August 12, 2013 02:33:32 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 12 August 2013 14:24, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha > <Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com> wrote: > > Can you please let which know which branch do you prefer to base the my > > request on ? > > Unless you have any dependencies, you must rebase on latest RC.. Yes, preferably 3.11-rc5. If there are any dependencies on linux-next material, please let me know. Thanks, Rafael
Hi Rafael, On 12/08/13 12:51, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday, August 12, 2013 02:33:32 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: >> On 12 August 2013 14:24, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha >> <Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com> wrote: >>> Can you please let which know which branch do you prefer to base the my >>> request on ? >> >> Unless you have any dependencies, you must rebase on latest RC.. > > Yes, preferably 3.11-rc5. > > If there are any dependencies on linux-next material, please let me know. > It doesn't have any functional dependencies, however I just found out now that there's a conflict with today's linux-next branch(tag: next-20130812) Regards, Sudeep
On 12/08/13 14:13, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday, August 12, 2013 01:41:58 PM Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote: >> Hi Rafael, >> >> On 12/08/13 12:51, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Monday, August 12, 2013 02:33:32 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: >>>> On 12 August 2013 14:24, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha >>>> <Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com> wrote: >>>>> Can you please let which know which branch do you prefer to base the my >>>>> request on ? >>>> >>>> Unless you have any dependencies, you must rebase on latest RC.. >>> >>> Yes, preferably 3.11-rc5. >>> >>> If there are any dependencies on linux-next material, please let me know. >>> >> >> It doesn't have any functional dependencies, however I just found out >> now that there's a conflict with today's linux-next branch(tag: >> next-20130812) > > That's not a big deal. > Thanks Rafael, in that case I will send the pull request based on 3.11-rc5 Regards, Sudeep
On Monday, August 12, 2013 01:41:58 PM Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote: > Hi Rafael, > > On 12/08/13 12:51, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Monday, August 12, 2013 02:33:32 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > >> On 12 August 2013 14:24, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha > >> <Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com> wrote: > >>> Can you please let which know which branch do you prefer to base the my > >>> request on ? > >> > >> Unless you have any dependencies, you must rebase on latest RC.. > > > > Yes, preferably 3.11-rc5. > > > > If there are any dependencies on linux-next material, please let me know. > > > > It doesn't have any functional dependencies, however I just found out > now that there's a conflict with today's linux-next branch(tag: > next-20130812) That's not a big deal. Thanks, Rafael