Ben, what's your preference? I waited for your reaction with these 
bits, i.e. they are not in tip:core/iommu yet.

Oh I though they were... discard my previous private mail about
missing Ack's then :-)

I'll review them more in depth hopefully tomorrow but they look good.

One variant would be what Fujita suggested: you could pull 
core/iommu as a basis (it's a well-tested, problem-free tree at the 
moment, with no big risky items), and then pull/apply the powerpc 
specific bits from Fujita.

Or we can have the patches in core/iommu and I pull the whole thing
in powerpc-next. My main concern isn't which tree they go through but
that they are in powerpc-next for better testing.

Cheers,
Ben.

A second variant would be that we could pull these bits into 
core/iommu ... albeit you are right that the PowerPC tree is much 
better at testing PowerPC patches.

A third variant would be to wait with these bits until the swiotlb 
bits in core/iommu hit upstream. This would increase patch latency.

Any of these variants is good to me. What Fujita suggests seems to 
be the best to me: #1 gets us the most testing and the lowest 
latency - at the cost of tree dependency. We wont rebase core/iommu.

[ We've got three good tree properties: "tree independence",
  "good testing", "low patch latency", but we cannot have all
  three at once, we must pick two of them ;-) ]

	Ingo