From: hpa@zytor.com (H. Peter Anvin) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 11:42:22 -0800 Subject: [PATCH v4 0/6] generic early_ioremap support In-Reply-To: <1393353942.26583.10.camel@deneb.redhat.com> References: <1392238575-10000-1-git-send-email-msalter@redhat.com> <1393337404.7307.51.camel@deneb.redhat.com> <20140225183012.GA27164@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> <1393353942.26583.10.camel@deneb.redhat.com> Message-ID: <530CF21E.1020603@zytor.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 02/25/2014 10:45 AM, Mark Salter wrote: > On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 18:30 +0000, Will Deacon wrote: >> I'd suggest spitting the core part out from the arch-specific parts. That >> way, the core part can merged independently and architectures can move over >> as they see fit. It also signals (at least to me) that, "hey, I should >> probably review this" whilst my current stance is "there's a whole load of >> stuff under mm/ that needs to be acked first". >> >> If you put the whole thing into next, you just run the risk of conflicts >> with all the arch trees. > > I've been thinking of breaking out the common bits and x86 bits and just > going with that for now. There's no point in just doing the common bits > because it won't get tested without at least one architecture using it. > If you think it makes sense we could take the common bits + x86 and put them through the -tip tree. The other option would be to put the whole thread in linux-next with Acks. As far as x86 is concerned it looks like it is mostly just code movement, so I'm happy giving my: Acked-by: H. Peter Anvin