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

[Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>]

On 25 Feb 2014, at 19:42, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> 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.  

I’m ok with the arm64 patches to go through -tip with my ack on all
patches:

Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>

> 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>

Thanks. Either way works for me.

I think the series still need an ack from rmk at least on the arm patch
(4/6).

Catalin