Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 23 Aug 2022 09:13:13 +0800
From:   Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, agordeev@linux.ibm.com,
        wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/11] mm: ioremap: fixup the physical address and
 page prot
Message-ID: <YwQpqTlsMx0mX26a@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
References: <20220820003125.353570-1-bhe@redhat.com>
 <20220820003125.353570-3-bhe@redhat.com>
 <YwHWvjoZF1V4FSlW@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YwHWvjoZF1V4FSlW@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

On 08/20/22 at 11:54pm, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > -void __iomem *arch_ioremap(phys_addr_t phys_addr, size_t size, unsigned long prot);
> > +void __iomem *
> > +arch_ioremap(phys_addr_t *paddr, size_t size, unsigned long *prot_val);
> 
> It seems a bit odd to do this in two steps vs just doing the entire
> change in the first patch.  Any good reason for that?

I will merge patch 1~2 or 1~3 into patch 1. Earlier, I wrote the reason
as below paragraph in cover letter of v1 post. Now it seems not so hard
to tell and understand.

====
For patch 1~3, I don't merge them because I made them in different
rounds of changing. And splitting them makes me easily describe the
intention and make review easier. I can merge them after v1 reviewing
if anyone thinks they should be merged.
====