[PATCH 0/6] cpufreq: use generic cpufreq drivers for Exynos4210platform

[Viresh Kumar]

On 14-05-15, 13:07, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> On 05/13/15 23:08, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> Hi Bart,
> 
> > On Friday, April 03, 2015 06:43:43 PM Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> This patch series removes the use of Exynos4210 specific support
> >> from cpufreq-exynos driver and enables the use of cpufreq-dt driver
> >> for this platform.
> > 
> > Gentle Ping.  Mike/Kukjin/Viresh could you please review/ack relevant
> > patches (patches #1-3 are for clock subsystem, patches #4-5 for Exynos
> > mach/dts and patch #6 is for cpufreq subsystem)?

Sorry I thought I already Acked an older version of this set and so
didn't went for it again. Done now.

> Yes, I totally agreed with this patches for arch side changes and this
> approach when Thomas posted.
> 
> > Also what is your
> > preferred way to upstream them (patches are not independent so it would
> > be best to merge them through one tree, otherwise synchronization of
> > git pulls between different subsystem trees will be needed)?
> > 
> I can provide topic branch for arch side changes even it is small. I
> think once Viresh and Mike make each topic branch based on -rc or the
> smallest changes from each subsystem then I could handle this series or
> Viresh or Mike need to handle this series with merging each topic
> branches in subsystem. I'm fine either way.
> 
> Viresh and Mike, how do you think about that?

For cpufreq subsystem changes, you can take them in your tree.

> > I'm still hoping that this patchset will make it into v4.2 as there are
> > no known issues with it (except minor coding nit for patch #5)...
> > 
> Sure, why not :-)

One thing that looked wrong to me is the email id of Thomas..
I believe he has already left Samsung and his id wouldn't exist
anymore. Right ?

Then I wouldn't recommend something that doesn't exist to get merged
now. Probably use another email id of his.