Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM: cpuidle: Unify the ARM64/ARM DT approach

2015-03-15 Thread Lorenzo Pieralisi
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 08:51:38PM +, Rob Herring wrote: > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Daniel Lezcano > wrote: > > > > Catalin, Rob, > > > > do you agree with this patchset ? > > There's very little to do with DT, but looks fine to me. There are key points related to DT, that are not ne

Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM: cpuidle: Unify the ARM64/ARM DT approach

2015-03-13 Thread Daniel Lezcano
On 03/13/2015 09:51 PM, Rob Herring wrote: On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: Catalin, Rob, do you agree with this patchset ? There's very little to do with DT, but looks fine to me. Shall I consider as a acked-by for the entire patchset or only the DT part ? Thanks f

Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM: cpuidle: Unify the ARM64/ARM DT approach

2015-03-13 Thread Daniel Lezcano
On 03/13/2015 07:29 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 03:25:34PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote: do you agree with this patchset ? In principle yes, apart from some function naming and I'm waiting for Lorenzo's ack as well. Do you plan to upstream this directly via your tree? If

Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM: cpuidle: Unify the ARM64/ARM DT approach

2015-03-13 Thread Rob Herring
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > > Catalin, Rob, > > do you agree with this patchset ? There's very little to do with DT, but looks fine to me. Rob > > Thanks > -- Daniel > > > On 03/03/2015 01:29 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> >> There is a big number of cpuidle drivers

Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM: cpuidle: Unify the ARM64/ARM DT approach

2015-03-13 Thread Catalin Marinas
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 03:25:34PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > do you agree with this patchset ? In principle yes, apart from some function naming and I'm waiting for Lorenzo's ack as well. Do you plan to upstream this directly via your tree? If yes, I'll look in more detail and give some acks.

Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM: cpuidle: Unify the ARM64/ARM DT approach

2015-03-13 Thread Daniel Lezcano
On 03/13/2015 06:03 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote: Daniel Lezcano writes: There is a big number of cpuidle drivers for the ARM architecture. These drivers have been cleaned up and grouped into the drivers/cpuidle directory to keep track of the changes more easily and ensure the code is following the

Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM: cpuidle: Unify the ARM64/ARM DT approach

2015-03-13 Thread Kevin Hilman
Daniel Lezcano writes: > There is a big number of cpuidle drivers for the ARM architecture. > > These drivers have been cleaned up and grouped into the drivers/cpuidle > directory to keep track of the changes more easily and ensure the code > is following the same scheme across the drivers. > > T

Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM: cpuidle: Unify the ARM64/ARM DT approach

2015-03-12 Thread Daniel Lezcano
Catalin, Rob, do you agree with this patchset ? Thanks -- Daniel On 03/03/2015 01:29 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: There is a big number of cpuidle drivers for the ARM architecture. These drivers have been cleaned up and grouped into the drivers/cpuidle directory to keep track of the changes m

[PATCH 0/6] ARM: cpuidle: Unify the ARM64/ARM DT approach

2015-03-03 Thread Daniel Lezcano
There is a big number of cpuidle drivers for the ARM architecture. These drivers have been cleaned up and grouped into the drivers/cpuidle directory to keep track of the changes more easily and ensure the code is following the same scheme across the drivers. That had the benefit of simplifying th