Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 14:22:46 +0000
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        peterz@infradead.org, broonie@kernel.org, will.deacon@arm.com,
        dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, sudeep.holla@arm.com,
        linux@arm.linux.org.uk, morten.rasmussen@arm.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 REPOST 0/9] CPUs capacity information for
 heterogeneous systems
Message-ID: <20161030142246.od5skjzegyp62hma@localhost>
References: <20161017154650.18779-1-juri.lelli@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20161017154650.18779-1-juri.lelli@arm.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20161014 (1.7.1)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 809
Lines: 20

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 04:46:41PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote:
> I'm thus now assuming that everybody is OK with the patches and that they can
> be queued for 4.10 (we certainly need this plumbing at this point). Please
> speak if my assumption is wrong (and provide feedback! :).
> Otherwise I'm going to:
> 
>  - use Russell's patching system for patches 2 and 8
>  - ask Sudeep to pull patches 3,5,6 and 7
>  - ask Catalin/Will to pull patches 1,4 and 9

I'm happy to queue patches 1, 4 and 9 for 4.10 (though it might have
been easier for the whole series to go through arm-soc).

> Do you think we might get into trouble splitting the merge process this way?

Probably not. The only minor downside is that I have to grab a new DT
for Juno from Sudeep to test the patches. Not an issue, though.

-- 
Catalin