Hi Rafael, On 31/08/17 12:27, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > Hi Raphael, > > On 31/08/17 00:34, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Friday, August 25, 2017 4:31:56 PM CEST Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > > [...] > >>> [1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=149625018223002&w=2 >>> [2] https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=150118402232039&w=2 >>> [3] https://marc.info/?l=linux-pm&m=149933474313566&w=2 >>> [4] >>> http://arminfo.emea.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.den0056a/DEN0056A_System_Control_and_Management_Interface.pdf >>> [5] https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=149690865010019&w=2 >>> >>> Dietmar Eggemann (10): >>> drivers base/arch_topology: free cpumask cpus_to_visit >>> cpufreq: provide default frequency-invariance setter function >>> cpufreq: arm_big_little: invoke frequency-invariance setter function >>> cpufreq: dt: invoke frequency-invariance setter function >>> drivers base/arch_topology: provide frequency-invariant accounting >>> support >>> drivers base/arch_topology: allow inlining cpu-invariant accounting >>> support >>> arm: wire frequency-invariant accounting support up to the task >>> scheduler >>> arm: wire cpu-invariant accounting support up to the task scheduler >>> arm64: wire frequency-invariant accounting support up to the task >>> scheduler >>> arm64: wire cpu-invariant accounting support up to the task scheduler >>> >>> arch/arm/include/asm/topology.h | 8 ++++++++ >>> arch/arm64/include/asm/topology.h | 8 ++++++++ >>> drivers/base/arch_topology.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++------ >>> drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c | 10 +++++++++- >>> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c | 12 ++++++++++-- >>> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 ++++++ >>> include/linux/arch_topology.h | 18 +++++++++++++++++- >>> include/linux/cpufreq.h | 3 +++ >>> 8 files changed, 84 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) >>> >>> >> >> FWIW, patches [2-4/10] in this series are fine by me, but I guess you >> need to talk to Viresh about the [3-4/10] anyway. > > Thanks for the review! Viresh already gave me his 'Acked-by' for > [3-4/10] during the v3 review. > > Since this patch-set touches different subsystems I wonder via which > tree it should go upstream? Could it go via your linux-pm tree or should > I ask Greg K-H?
Ping. I don't expect any more review on this patch-set. It's only patch PATCH v4 02/10] which has no Acked-By yet. Thanks, -- Dietmar
