From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752308Ab1LVPWg (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Dec 2011 10:22:36 -0500 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]:55062 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752349Ab1LVPWb (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Dec 2011 10:22:31 -0500 From: Arnd Bergmann To: "Ohad Ben-Cohen" Subject: Re: Adding remoteproc/rpmsg to linux-next Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 15:22:20 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/3.2.0-rc1+; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: "linux-arm" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Grant Likely , Brian Swetland , akpm@linux-foundation.org, Greg KH , Stephen Boyd , Mark Brown , Rusty Russell , Russell King , Tony Lindgren , Saravana Kannan , Stephen Rothwell , Linus Walleij References: <20111212103301.5ff6a582dca82394ace40e8d@canb.auug.org.au> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201112221522.21146.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:hBVOvB278dLgsdTRxcGzVAv3RKGYAhiObPebX0Cx2e+ x/ilo+PMxjg3c5VhSqeTritjOuqjt87Ec19nxtcJDq8MzQ8qtf kSgXuWIoojiL6/perjq0Xl4pzEbLlJtyRX6PCd6/kplVPd2MVr MLRZpIkdLoMEqqIvS+LFj5QWQmP5+WqL7Ol8zdUK3Vq12Xjn1p RyDhfYa+Q9E5gFfLerO5LKOV/nLzkYOIKmK/97iwDUFf7lGL4M hM1A81lKcglsQlJuvsvRWakNTK5BDKkbHvcsaXLAlh9qUMJM60 uAGhnC8VOpEgp7msdcQetJnXMvudzxJVsACS6UPxo7wEvjCfYZ rAMIZ0ulC1vagNHSmBqA= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 21 December 2011, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote: > Hi Arnd, > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 1:33 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > On Fri, 9 Dec 2011 16:55:27 +0200 Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote: > >> > >> Can you please add the following remoteproc tree to linux-next ? > >> > >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ohad/remoteproc.git for-next > > > > I have added that from today. > > Would you like rpmsg/remoteproc to go through arm-soc or do you prefer > me to send a pull request directly to Linus ? > > If you prefer the former (IIRC you told me you might consider it in a > random ELCE hallway conversation :) then I'll send you a pull request. > > I'm happy either way. Either way works for me, too. Right now, I would tend to let you send it to Linus directly because I haven't looked at the latest versions of the code for some time. While I generally trust you to do the right thing there, I'm not 100% comfortable to vouch for it in the way that an Ack or pull would imply without doing a more detailed review of the latest code. I know that I promised you that review, but haven't gotten to it, sorry. I've done a 5 minute review now and it absolutely looks good to go in as far as I can tell, so I certainly don't object to you sending it to Linus for 3.3. If you think you need more Acks or if there are other reasons to have it go through arm-soc, please tell me and I'll try harder to find the time for a proper review. Arnd