From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756659Ab2GQUqb (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jul 2012 16:46:31 -0400 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([193.178.161.156]:45020 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754132Ab2GQUq2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jul 2012 16:46:28 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Kevin Hilman Subject: Re: PM: Summary of changes for v3.6 Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 22:52:05 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/3.5.0-rc5+; KDE/4.6.0; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Daniel Lezcano , LKML , Linux PM list , Len Brown , ACPI Devel Mailing List , Alan Stern , Colin Cross References: <201207162246.03660.rjw@sisk.pl> <87mx2zcq62.fsf@ti.com> In-Reply-To: <87mx2zcq62.fsf@ti.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201207172252.06093.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Tuesday, July 17, 2012, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Rafael, Daniel, > > "Rafael J. Wysocki" writes: > > > Hi all, > > > > All of the changes I'd like to include into the first PM pull request during > > the v3.6 merge window, except maybe for one or two patches I know are in the > > works, is on the 'linux-next' branch of the linux-pm.git tree now. The summary > > of those changes is appended. If anyone finds any of them objectionable, > > please let me know ASAP. Also please let me know if you have any power > > management patches you'd like me to take for v3.6. > > > > Could someone please clarify the status of the coupled CPUidle series? > > There's a version of these in Daniels cpuidle-next branch and there's a > version of these in Len's next branch (included in linux-next), but I'm > still not entirely sure which branch is going upstream and which branch > has the latest version (but I think Daniel's is the latest) Colin says that the commits in the Len's tree match his latest version, so I think those commits should be merged, since they have been present in that tree since the 3.5 merge window. Thanks, Rafael