[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1425465893.14897.163.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 12:44:53 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
"Kumar P, Mahesh" <mahesh.kumar.p@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] x86: pmc_atom: Add Cherrytrail support
On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 11:37 +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> On 2015/2/23 20:45, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-01-20 at 23:49 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >> This is the reworked patch series which had been sent earlier [1] to support
> >> Intel CherryTrail SoC.
> >>
> >> The patches were tested on both BayTrail and CherryTrail SoCs.
> >>
> >> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5235891/
> >
> > Aubrey, is everything is clear for you now? Can I send v3 with your
> > Ack's?
> The patches overall look good to me, except a few minor comments need to
> be addressed in the last conversation. For example, I think we don't
> need patch 1/4 if we won't use dev_print.
We still use them. Like I said the patch has no relations to the series,
though it simplifies already existing function.
> some other changes might be
> necessary only if they makes code cleaner and works better.
Thus, I think the patch 1/4 is still useful.
> Certainly, it would be better if other x86 maintainers can take a look
> at these patches.
Agree.
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
Intel Finland Oy
--
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