On 18/09/12 23:42, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sunday, September 16, 2012, Witold Szczeponik wrote:
>> Hi Rafael,
>>
>> what about the patches 1 and 3 which do not make any changes to the ABI?
>> The first patch simplifies the code, while the third patch fixes a problem in
>> the PNP resource allocation. Any chances to have them included in 3.7?
>
> They would be fine as far as I'm concerned, but I'm not maintaining that part
> of the kernel (at least at the moment).
>
> I'm not sure who's the maintainer of it, to be honest.
Well, according to https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/19/375, that would be you
(together with Bjorn and Len). :-) Hence I am resending the request for
inclusion to you as well. PNP code went, if I am not mistaken, traditionally
through Len's tree.
--- Witold
>
> Thanks,
> Rafael
>
On Friday 19 of October 2012 21:02:20 Witold Szczeponik wrote:
> On 18/09/12 23:42, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sunday, September 16, 2012, Witold Szczeponik wrote:
> >> Hi Rafael,
> >>
> >> what about the patches 1 and 3 which do not make any changes to the ABI?
> >> The first patch simplifies the code, while the third patch fixes a problem in
> >> the PNP resource allocation. Any chances to have them included in 3.7?
> >
> > They would be fine as far as I'm concerned, but I'm not maintaining that part
> > of the kernel (at least at the moment).
> >
> > I'm not sure who's the maintainer of it, to be honest.
>
> Well, according to https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/19/375, that would be you
> (together with Bjorn and Len). :-) Hence I am resending the request for
> inclusion to you as well. PNP code went, if I am not mistaken, traditionally
> through Len's tree.
OK, so can you please resend them?
Rafael
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.