Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] generic early_ioremap support

[Mark Salter <msalter@redhat.com>]

On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 11:42 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> 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 <hpa@linux.intel.com>
> 

I going to send out a v5 with the arm bits dropped and Ack-bys added.
There is still some work left there, so I think I'll redo the arm bits
separately after once the common bits are in the kernel.

Peter, is your Acked-by only for "[3/6] x86: use generic early_ioremap"?
Or did you intend "[1/6] x86/mm: sparse warning fix for early_memremap"
and/or "[2/6] mm: create generic early_ioremap() support" also?