Good job Rob. Now you need to make sure that the branch you provided is up to date with Linus's latest -rc (aka rebase your branch every rc).
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au Date: Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 8:40 AM Subject: Re: [git pull] Consolidate cpuidle functionality To: Rob Lee rob.lee@linaro.org Cc: rjw@sisk.pl, len.brown@intel.com, nicolas.pitre@linaro.org, venki@google.com, linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, tony@atomide.com, nicolas.ferre@atmel.com, linux@arm.linux.org.uk, ccross@google.com, kernel@wantstofly.org, kgene.kim@samsung.com, mturquette@linaro.org, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, magnus.damm@gmail.com, arnd.bergmann@linaro.org, jon-hunter@ti.com, patches@linaro.org, nsekhar@ti.com, jean.pihet@newoldbits.com, Baohua.Song@csr.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux@maxim.org.za, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, deepthi@linux.vnet.ibm.com, g.trinabh@gmail.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com, amit.kucheria@linaro.org, lethal@linux-sh.org, amit.kachhap@linaro.org, Kevin Hilman khilman@ti.com, Andrew Morton akpm@linux-foundation.org
Hi Rob,
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 19:58:23 -0600 Rob Lee rob.lee@linaro.org wrote:
git://git.linaro.org/people/rob_lee/linux.git cpuidle_consol_pull
These changes move various functionality duplicated in platform cpuidle drivers to the core cpuidle driver and common arch arm code. Also, the irq disabling in the platform code was removed as all calls into cpuidle_call_idle() will have already called local_irq_disable().
This patchset is bisect safe. Also, the core cpuidle and arch changes of the first commit do not require any changes to the arch and platform cpuidle drivers, though those arch and platform change should be made to take advantage of the new consolidation function.
Stephen, this patch has been reviewed, tested, and ACK'd per the list above but cpuidle maintainer Len Brown has been out on vacation for a couple of weeks so I am sending you this pull request as time is running out to get this into v3.4. I've had a brief communication with Andrew Morton about this as well so he is aware of this situation. I am fairly new to the community so please let me know if you see anything that needs my attention or anything I should be doing differently.
I will add this tree from today. Lets see if anyone screams.
Thanks for adding your subsystem tree as a participant of linux-next. As you may know, this is not a judgment of your code. The purpose of linux-next is for integration testing and to lower the impact of conflicts between subsystems in the next merge window.
You will need to ensure that the patches/commits in your tree/series have been: * submitted under GPL v2 (or later) and include the Contributor's Signed-off-by, * posted to the relevant mailing list, * reviewed by you (or another maintainer of your subsystem tree), * successfully unit tested, and * destined for the current or next Linux merge window.
Basically, this should be just what you would send to Linus (or ask him to fetch). It is allowed to be rebased if you deem it necessary.
-- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au
Legal Stuff: By participating in linux-next, your subsystem tree contributions are public and will be included in the linux-next trees. You may be sent e-mail messages indicating errors or other issues when the patches/commits from your subsystem tree are merged and tested in linux-next. These messages may also be cross-posted to the linux-next mailing list, the linux-kernel mailing list, etc. The linux-next tree project and IBM (my employer) make no warranties regarding the linux-next project, the testing procedures, the results, the e-mails, etc. If you don't agree to these ground rules, let me know and I'll remove your tree from participation in linux-next.