Subject: [RFC V6 3/3] arm64:add bitrev.h file to support rbit instruction

From: [email-masked] (Will Deacon)
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 09:50:51 +0000

On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 08:47:32AM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 3 November 2014 03:17, Wang, Yalin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >> From: Will Deacon [mailto:will.deacon at arm.com]
> >> > +#ifndef __ASM_ARM64_BITREV_H
> >> > +#define __ASM_ARM64_BITREV_H
> >>
> >> Really minor nit, but we don't tend to include 'ARM64' in our header guards,
> >> so this should just be __ASM_BITREV_H.
> >>
> >> With that change,
> >>
> >>   Acked-by: Will Deacon <[email-masked]>
> >>
> > I have send the patch to the patch system:
> > http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/search.php?uid=4025
> >
> > 8187/1 8188/1 8189/1
> >
> > Just remind you that , should also cherry-pick Joe Perches's
> > 2 patches:
> > [PATCH] 6fire: Convert byte_rev_table uses to bitrev8
> > [PATCH] carl9170: Convert byte_rev_table uses to bitrev8
> >
> > To make sure there is no build error when build these 2 drivers.
> >
> 
> If this is the case, I suggest you update patch 8187/1 to retain the
> byte_rev_table symbol, even in the accelerated case, and remove it
> with a followup patch once Joe's patches have landed upstream. Also, a
> link to the patches would be nice, and perhaps a bit of explanation
> how/when they are expected to be merged.

Indeed, or instead put together a series with the appropriate acks so
somebody can merge it all in one go. Merging this on a piecemeal basis is
going to cause breakages (as you pointed out).

Will