[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150115190220.GF3043@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 19:02:20 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
"hanjun.guo@...aro.org" <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
"graeme.gregory@...aro.org" <graeme.gregory@...aro.org>,
Sudeep Holla <Sudeep.Holla@....com>,
"jcm@...hat.com" <jcm@...hat.com>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@....com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Charles Garcia-Tobin <Charles.Garcia-Tobin@....com>,
"phoenix.liyi@...wei.com" <phoenix.liyi@...wei.com>,
Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>,
"suravee.suthikulpanit@....com" <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,
Yijing Wang <wangyijing@...wei.com>,
ACPI Devel Mailing List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linaro-acpi <linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 06:23:47PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 04:26:20PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote:
> > I'll get right to the point: Can we please have this series queued up
> > for v3.20?
> Before you even ask for this, please look at the patches and realise
> that there is a complete lack of Reviewed-by tags on the code (well,
> apart from trivial Kconfig changes). In addition, the series touches on
> other subsystems like clocksource, irqchip, acpi and I don't see any
> acks from the corresponding maintainers. So even if I wanted to merge
> the series, there is no way it can be done without additional
> reviews/acks. On the document (last patch), I'd like to see a statement
There's probably a bit of a process problem here - these patches are all
being posted as part of big and apparently controversial threads with
subject lines in the form "ARM / ACPI:" so people could be forgiven for
just not even reading the e-mails enough to notice changes to their
subsystems. Is it worth posting those patches separately more directly
to the relevant maintainers?
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists