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 16:58:35 -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: <20230718215835.GA496612@bhelgaas>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20230718211224.GA494538@bhelgaas>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 04:12:24PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> 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.

I provisionally put these on pci/ioport for v6.6.  If you pick them up
for v6.5, let me know and I'll just drop that branch.

Bjorn