On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 12:25:59 AM Kukjin Kim wrote:
On 04/05/13 20:36, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, April 05, 2013 12:36:34 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 5 April 2013 12:18, Kukjin Kimkgene.kim@samsung.com wrote:
Basically, this moving looks good to me, but should be re-worked based on for-next of samsung tree because this touches too many samsung stuff so this should be sent to upstream via samsung tree.
Hmm... Its already applied in Rafael's tree. But it doesn't mean that it can't be moved to your tree if there is a issue.
Well, I'm dropping it. Please merge via the Samsung tree.
Oops, I missed, maybe I have no more chance to send this to upstream for upcoming merge window :-(
Rafael, please take this patch with my ack in your tree, sorry for noise.
Acked-by: Kukjin Kim kgene.kim@samsung.com
If any problems, please kindly let me know.
Well, I suppose I can take the original patch, but then it will conflict with your tree during merge. Is that not a problem?
Rafael