On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > [-cc Venkatesh (bouncing) > > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez > <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Acked-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Thanks! Who's tree should this go through? > > I don't know. This is the only patch that went to linux-pci, so I > haven't seen the rest. Oh I only rev'd a v5 for 1/5 as that's the only one that had feedback asking for changes. Patch v4 2/5 was for "lib: devres: add pcim_iomap_wc() variants", you had questions about EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() and the fact that this is not yet used. I replied. This patch can then be ignored but again, I'd hate for folks to go in and try to add a non EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() symbol of this. Patches v4 3-5 remain intact, I had addressed it to you, but failed to Cc linux-pci, I'll go ahead and bounce those now. Just today Dave Arlie provided a Reviewed-by to some simple framebuffer device driver changes. I wonder if these changes should go through the framebuffer tree provided you already gave the Acked-by for the PCI parts, or if the PCI parts should go in first and only later (I guess we'd have to wait) then intake the driver changes that use the symbol. What we decide should likely also apply to the series that adds pci_ioremap_wc_bar() and makes use of it on drivers. Dave, Tomi, any preference? Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
