[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpok7RiJ_HKGi3r0vU26kNEtFKq==pMMoshT6Z2yy9ghemA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 17:54:18 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org,
robin.randhawa@....com, Steve.Bannister@....com,
Liviu.Dudau@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPUFreq: Implement per policy instances of governors
On 4 February 2013 17:47, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> Well, [1-2/4] are things I can take for v3.9 no problem. The other two I'd
> wait for the next cycle to be honest. We already have 30+ cpufreq patches
> scheduled for v3.9 and some of them quite subtle for that matter.
To be honest, i wanted to get these in 3.9 :) .
And that's why hurried on them and got this full series working in a single
day of work :)
Anyway, i understand your point and i also believe last two patches require some
testing/review before these getting in.
One important point i would like to highlight is:
governors directory would be present in cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/ now instead
of cpu/cpufreq/.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists