From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752008Ab3BTXf7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:35:59 -0500 Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:47296 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751815Ab3BTXf6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:35:58 -0500 Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 23:35:32 +0000 From: Russell King - ARM Linux To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Alessandro Rubini , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, giancarlo.asnaghi@st.com, ciminaghi@gnudd.com, alan@linux.intel.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, x86@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 4/5] drivers/amba: add support for a PCI bridge Message-ID: <20130220233532.GY17833@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <51254F57.7060603@zytor.com> <52b9f4e1cc04b7c656e10ee16020090601f6f537.1361393832.git.rubini@gnudd.com> <20130220222419.GX17833@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20130220224528.GA24819@mail.gnudd.com> <51255329.4070506@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <51255329.4070506@zytor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 02:50:17PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 02/20/2013 02:45 PM, Alessandro Rubini wrote: > > [meanwhile I posted V6 with the acked-by of linusw and others, that > > were missing in V5] > > > > rmk: > >>> I'm happy to take it through my tree if everyone is now happy with this. > > > > hpa: > >> I am okay with that, although I would like to make sure we do a bunch of > >> x86 randconfigs on it before pushing it to Linus. > > > > I did like this: > > - disable STA2X11 (and thus AMBA) and build > > - enable STA2X11, answer y to all new questions and build > > > > So there's nothing left (you'll have two unrelated warnings, that I'm > > working on and I'll post a fix tomorrow). Sure, Peter, first time I > > didn't do that test and missed some of the drivers. > > > > I was just concerned that rmk wouldn't necessarily do those tests as a > matter of process. > > So Russell -- how do you want to handle this? Should I take them (and > ask Ingo to put them through his test machinery) or do you want to (and > run x86 randconfigs as part of your testing)? Well, I'm happy to take the non-x86 bits if that's what others want (for the _next_ merge window, not this one.) That _should_ result in x86 not seeing this stuff until it gets the ARM_AMBA definition enabled, and giving it a full cycle of testing. However, if we want to keep the patch set together and route it via another tree, I'm also fine with that too.