Re: [PATCH 10/10] mach-ux500: update and move cpufreq driver

From: Dave Jones
Date: Tue May 17 2011 - 17:12:39 EST

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:02:14AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> 2011/5/10 Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> > Haven't had chance to really read much patches the last few days
> > (travelling until the 16th).  Due to the patch collisions we'll keep
> > seeing on kconfig/Makefiles, should these go via the cpufreq tree,
> > or do people want to still push them through their respective arch trees ?
> I pushed a patch series yesterday that basically deactivates the
> cpufreq driver in the mach-ux500, moves it over to drivers/cpufreq,
> updates it, then reactivates it in the new place with a patch to
> the Makefile.

Just got back from travelling, so I'm buried under mail backlog right now.
The only one that jumped out was the one I was cc'd on
([PATCH 10/10] mach-ux500: update and move cpufreq driver).

> Of these changes only the last patch will collide with your tree,
> so I pushed all of them except that one to linux-next.
> The last patch I plan to submit to Torvalds directly after both
> trees have gone into the merge window.
> Can you please look into this and ACK the patches if they
> seem OK?

The patch that moves the driver over looked ok to me, so feel free
to add my acked-by to it.

>From the look of things, the Kconfig is staying under arch/arm for now ?



To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at