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, 18 Jul 2023 16:12:24 -0500
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To:     Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/2] PCI: Handle HAS_IOPORT dependencies
Message-ID: <20230718211224.GA494538@bhelgaas>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <9778740b9e07b9bb92b86bf13b8f6329485ae418.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 08:02:40PM +0200, Niklas Schnelle wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-07-03 at 12:42 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 03:52:53PM +0200, Niklas Schnelle wrote:
> > > Hi Bjorn,
> > > 
> > > This is a follow up to my ongoing effort of making the inb()/outb() and
> > > similar I/O port accessors compile-time optional. Previously I sent this as
> > > a complete treewide series titled "treewide: Remove I/O port accessors for
> > > HAS_IOPORT=n" with the latest being its 5th version[0]. Now about half of
> > > the per-subsystem patches have been merged so I'm changing over to stand
> > > alone subsystem patches. These series are stand alone and should be merged
> > > via the relevant tree such that with all subsystems complete we can follow
> > > this up with the last patch[1] that will make the I/O port accessors
> > > compile-time optional.
> > 
> > Is the merge plan for each subsystem to merge this separately?  I
> > acked these so they could be merged along with all the tree-wide
> > changes.
> 
> Hi Bj?rn,
> 
> Yeah this went back and forth a little, sorry about that. With the
> Kconfig introduction of HAS_IOPORT merged about half of the original
> patches have been merged via subsystem maintainers or are at least
> sitting in linux-next already.  Arnd was anticipating that he'll pick
> up some left overs but at the moment the simplest is for subsystems to
> pick the patches up themselves ideally and if small enough for v6.5
> still.

I didn't merge these in time for the v6.5 merge window.  If you want
these in v6.5, it's fine with me, and it would probably make more
sense for you to bundle them with any other leftovers.

Otherwise, let me know and I'm happy to queue them for v6.6.

Bjorn