[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161208110410.GA9768@leverpostej>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 11:04:10 +0000
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Fu Wei <fu.wei@...aro.org>
Cc: Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>,
kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
Linaro ACPI Mailman List <linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>, Wei Huang <wei@...hat.com>,
Tomasz Nowicki <tn@...ihalf.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, kbuild-all@...org,
"Abdulhamid, Harb" <harba@...eaurora.org>,
Julien Grall <julien.grall@....com>,
linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
Christopher Covington <cov@...eaurora.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v17 08/15]
clocksource/drivers/arm_arch_timer: move arch_timer_needs_of_probing into DT
init call
On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 11:16:21AM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
> Hi Timur,
>
> On 8 December 2016 at 01:25, Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Fu Wei <fu.wei@...aro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> a "+ int ret;" should be move from [12/15] to here, I have fix the
> >> problem in my repo, it would happen in next patchset
> >>
> >> https://git.linaro.org/people/fu.wei/linux.git/log/?h=topic-gtdt-wakeup-timer_upstream_v18_devel
> >
> > Fu, please post v18 to the mailing list so that it can be picked up
> > for 4.10 (if it's not too late already).
Unfortunately, it's too late for v4.10. It hasn't been sat in linux-next
at all, and we've seen kbuild test failures.
Hopefully there's time to beat this into shape and get it into
linux-next so that it's ready to queue for v4.11, though.
> Great thanks for your suggestion! :-)
> yes, you are right, I would love to post v18 ASAP.
>
> But I am still waiting for more feedback from the maintainers.
Please post a version which passes inspection by the kbuild test robot.
I haven't had a chance to look at this yet, and it'll be better to look
at a version that actually works.
Thanks,
Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists