Adding remoteproc/rpmsg to linux-next

Ohad Ben-Cohen ohad at
Fri Dec 23 06:45:19 EST 2011

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd at> wrote:
> 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.

Directly to Linus it is then.

> 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.

Sure, I fully understand.

> 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.

I do have explicit Acks on the changes to other sub-systems, though
ideally I'd be happy to have some explicit Acks on the generic code

But I hope this should be fine. Let's try to proceed this way and see
how it goes (maybe I should just tell Linus that despite the lack of
explicit Acks to some of the patches, people do think this is


More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list