Re: [PATCH V5 4/5] drivers/amba: add support for a PCI bridge

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

On 02/20/2013 03:35 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 02:50:17PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 02/20/2013 02:45 PM, Alessandro Rubini wrote:
>>> [meanwhile I posted V6 with the acked-by of linusw and others, that
>>> were missing in V5]
>>>
>>> rmk:
>>>>> I'm happy to take it through my tree if everyone is now happy with this.
>>>
>>> hpa: 
>>>> I am okay with that, although I would like to make sure we do a bunch of
>>>> x86 randconfigs on it before pushing it to Linus.
>>>
>>> I did like this:
>>>   - disable STA2X11 (and thus AMBA) and build
>>>   - enable STA2X11, answer y to all new questions and build
>>>
>>> So there's nothing left (you'll have two unrelated warnings, that I'm
>>> working on and I'll post a fix tomorrow).  Sure, Peter, first time I
>>> didn't do that test and missed some of the drivers.
>>>
>>
>> I was just concerned that rmk wouldn't necessarily do those tests as a
>> matter of process.
>>
>> So Russell -- how do you want to handle this?  Should I take them (and
>> ask Ingo to put them through his test machinery) or do you want to (and
>> run x86 randconfigs as part of your testing)?
> 
> Well, I'm happy to take the non-x86 bits if that's what others want (for
> the _next_ merge window, not this one.)  That _should_ result in x86 not
> seeing this stuff until it gets the ARM_AMBA definition enabled, and
> giving it a full cycle of testing.
> 
> However, if we want to keep the patch set together and route it via
> another tree, I'm also fine with that too.
> 

Actually, between linux-next and Fengguang's zeroday testbot I suspect
we'll get all the coverage we need.  So yes, go ahead and take them.

Acked-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>

	-hpa