Re: [PATCH v10 0/2] (arm-soc for v3.10) arm: introduce psci_smp_ops

[Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>]

On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 07:42:58PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Thu, 2 May 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 06:20:32PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2 May 2013, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > Hi Stefano,
> > > > 
> > > > On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 06:12:12PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > > ping
> > > > 
> > > > Is this a ping to have this pulled into Russell's tree?
> > > 
> > > I thought that we agreed that the patches should go via the arm-soc
> > > tree, after Russell acks them.
> > 
> > Okay, well, is there a reason for them to go through arm-soc?  They
> > look more like core code to me than SoC specific - they only minimally
> > touch mach-virt.
> 
> The original reason is that some SoC specific code depends on this
> series (Calxeda I believe).
> 
> But you are probably right, if you prefer that I issue a pull request
> for your tree, I have no problems with that.

The only issue that there is is where we are in the development cycle
(almost mid merge window), and I've yet to push anything to Linus thanks
to late discovery of various messups in other chunks of code submitted
via my tree - I'm starting to drop stuff from my tree in the hope that
I'll get back to something that's going to be suitable for mainline.

I really don't want to go pulling anything else at the moment in the
hope of getting what I currently have out the door.

And in any case, we shouldn't be adding any new code to our trees at
this point in time.