All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
To: Peter Geis <pgwipeout@gmail.com>
Cc: "Bjorn Helgaas" <helgaas@kernel.org>,
	"Punit Agrawal" <punitagrawal@gmail.com>,
	"Robin Murphy" <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	"Alexandru Elisei" <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>,
	"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..."
	<linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org>,
	arm-mail-list <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"Heiko Stuebner" <heiko.stuebner@theobroma-systems.com>,
	"Leonardo Bras" <leobras.c@gmail.com>,
	"Rob Herring" <robh@kernel.org>, PCI <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Christian König" <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] rockpro64: PCI BAR reassignment broken by commit 9d57e61bf723 ("of/pci: Add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 to resource flags for 64-bit memory addresses")
Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 16:18:02 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMj1kXF0Gh+CNJ+Y=Xv_1Z1gRpubBQLL81pUHgZ0DXNUO-MYqQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMdYzYptcAyb3U3ZZvNL8GwdcP-a2X8MX+rji2z0nEuiw0Br5A@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, 25 May 2021 at 22:03, Peter Geis <pgwipeout@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 3:43 PM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 25 May 2021 at 21:15, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 05:54:56PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 25 May 2021 at 17:34, Peter Geis <pgwipeout@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > >> > On 2021-05-18 10:09, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> [..]
> > > > > > > >> >> [    0.305183] rockchip-pcie f8000000.pcie: host bridge /pcie@f8000000 ranges:
> > > > > > > >> >> [    0.305248] rockchip-pcie f8000000.pcie:      MEM 0x00fa000000..0x00fbdfffff -> 0x00fa000000
> > > > > > > >> >> [    0.305285] rockchip-pcie f8000000.pcie:       IO 0x00fbe00000..0x00fbefffff -> 0x00fbe00000
> > > > > > > >> >> [    0.373705] rockchip-pcie f8000000.pcie: PCI host bridge to bus 0000:00
> > > > > > > >> >> [    0.373730] pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [bus 00-1f]
> > > > > > > >> >> [    0.373751] pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [mem 0xfa000000-0xfbdfffff 64bit]
> > > > > > > >> >> [    0.373777] pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [io  0x0000-0xfffff] (bus address [0xfbe00000-0xfbefffff])
> > >
> > > > ... For some reason, lspci translates the BAR values to CPU
> > > > addresses, but the PCI side addresses are within 32-bits.
> > >
> > > lspci shows BARs as CPU physical addresses by default.  These are the
> > > same addresses you would see in pdev->resource[n] and the same as BAR
> > > values you would see in dmesg.
> > >
> > > A 64-bit CPU physical address can certainly be translated by the host
> > > bridge to a 32-bit PCI address.  But that's not happening here because
> > > this host bridge applies no translation (CPU physical 0xfa000000 maps
> > > to bus address 0xfa000000).
> > >
> > > "lspci -b" shows the PCI bus addresses.
> >
> > Ah, thanks.
> >
> > It does seem, though, that the information overload in this thread is
> > causing confusion now. Peter shared some log output where there is
> > definitely MMIO translation being applied.
>
> Yes, I've done work on the rk3399 pcie controller which is why this
> caught my attention.
> The original issue still seems to exist:
> For some reason:
> commit 9d57e61bf723 ("of/pci: Add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 to resource flags for
> 64-bit memory addresses")
> causes allocation issues now.
> The original description of the issue aligned with issues I was having
> bringing up the rk356x pcie controller.
>
> >
> > > > [    6.673497] pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [io  0x0000-0xfffff]
> > > > (bus address [0x3f700000-0x3f7fffff])
> > > > [    6.674642] pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [mem
> > > > 0x300000000-0x33f6fffff] (bus address [0x00000000-0x3f6fffff])
> >
> > In this case, the I/O translation definitely looks wrong. On a typical
> > ARM DT system, you will see something like
> >
> > [    1.500324] Remapped I/O 0x0000000067f00000 to [io  0x0000-0xffff window]
> > [    1.500522] pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [io  0x0000-0xffff window]
> >
> > The MMIO window looks correct, but I suspect that both 0x82000000 and
> > 0x83000000 in the DT ranges are describing the resource window as
> > prefetchable, preventing the allocation of non-prefetchable BARs in
> > this window.
>
> I checked with lspci -vvvbxxxxnn:
>
> Before your changes:
> 00:00.0 PCI bridge [0604]: Fuzhou Rockchip Electronics Co., Ltd Device
> [1d87:3566] (rev 01) (prog-if 00 [Normal decode])
>         I/O behind bridge: 00001000-00001fff [size=4K]
>         Memory behind bridge: 50000000-500fffff [size=1M]
>         Prefetchable memory behind bridge:
> 0000000040000000-000000004fffffff [size=256M]
> 01:00.0 VGA compatible controller [0300]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
> [AMD/ATI] Turks PRO [Radeon HD 7570] [1002:675d] (prog-if 00 [VGA
> controller])
>         Region 0: Memory at 40000000 (64-bit, prefetchable)
>         Region 2: Memory at 50000000 (64-bit, non-prefetchable)
>         Region 4: I/O ports at 7f701000
>         Expansion ROM at 50020000 [disabled]
>
> After your changes:
> lspci -vvvbxxxxnn
> 00:00.0 PCI bridge: Fuzhou Rockchip Electronics Co., Ltd Device 3566
> (rev 01) (prog-if 00 [Normal decode])
>         I/O behind bridge: 00001000-00001fff [size=4K]
>         Memory behind bridge: 10000000-100fffff [size=1M]
>         Prefetchable memory behind bridge:
> 0000000000000000-000000000fffffff [size=256M]
> 01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
> [AMD/ATI] Turks PRO [Radeon HD 7570] (prog-if 00 [VGA controller])
>         Region 0: Memory at <unassigned> (64-bit, prefetchable) [virtual]
>         Region 2: Memory at 10000000 (64-bit, non-prefetchable) [virtual]
>         Region 4: I/O ports at 1000 [virtual]
>         Expansion ROM at 10020000 [disabled]
>
> >
> > Peter, for the configuration listed here, could you try something like
> >
> > ranges = <0x1000000 0x0 0x0 [IO base in the CPU address map] [IO size]>,
> >          <0x2000000 0x0 0x0 [MMIO base in the CPU address map] [MMIO size]>;
>
> That was similar to what I already had, removing the relocatable flag
> and setting both addresses to 0x0 are the changes.
>
> Here is the result:

<snip>

I'm not sure which conclusion I am supposed to draw from that output.

Are you saying the output looks ok but the GPU card does not work?

Is your system DMA coherent? I would not be very optimistic about
these drivers working out of the box on non-coherent systems.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
To: Peter Geis <pgwipeout@gmail.com>
Cc: "Bjorn Helgaas" <helgaas@kernel.org>,
	"Punit Agrawal" <punitagrawal@gmail.com>,
	"Robin Murphy" <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	"Alexandru Elisei" <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>,
	"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..."
	<linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org>,
	arm-mail-list <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"Heiko Stuebner" <heiko.stuebner@theobroma-systems.com>,
	"Leonardo Bras" <leobras.c@gmail.com>,
	"Rob Herring" <robh@kernel.org>, PCI <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Christian König" <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] rockpro64: PCI BAR reassignment broken by commit 9d57e61bf723 ("of/pci: Add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 to resource flags for 64-bit memory addresses")
Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 16:18:02 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMj1kXF0Gh+CNJ+Y=Xv_1Z1gRpubBQLL81pUHgZ0DXNUO-MYqQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMdYzYptcAyb3U3ZZvNL8GwdcP-a2X8MX+rji2z0nEuiw0Br5A@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, 25 May 2021 at 22:03, Peter Geis <pgwipeout@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 3:43 PM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 25 May 2021 at 21:15, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 05:54:56PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 25 May 2021 at 17:34, Peter Geis <pgwipeout@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > >> > On 2021-05-18 10:09, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> [..]
> > > > > > > >> >> [    0.305183] rockchip-pcie f8000000.pcie: host bridge /pcie@f8000000 ranges:
> > > > > > > >> >> [    0.305248] rockchip-pcie f8000000.pcie:      MEM 0x00fa000000..0x00fbdfffff -> 0x00fa000000
> > > > > > > >> >> [    0.305285] rockchip-pcie f8000000.pcie:       IO 0x00fbe00000..0x00fbefffff -> 0x00fbe00000
> > > > > > > >> >> [    0.373705] rockchip-pcie f8000000.pcie: PCI host bridge to bus 0000:00
> > > > > > > >> >> [    0.373730] pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [bus 00-1f]
> > > > > > > >> >> [    0.373751] pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [mem 0xfa000000-0xfbdfffff 64bit]
> > > > > > > >> >> [    0.373777] pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [io  0x0000-0xfffff] (bus address [0xfbe00000-0xfbefffff])
> > >
> > > > ... For some reason, lspci translates the BAR values to CPU
> > > > addresses, but the PCI side addresses are within 32-bits.
> > >
> > > lspci shows BARs as CPU physical addresses by default.  These are the
> > > same addresses you would see in pdev->resource[n] and the same as BAR
> > > values you would see in dmesg.
> > >
> > > A 64-bit CPU physical address can certainly be translated by the host
> > > bridge to a 32-bit PCI address.  But that's not happening here because
> > > this host bridge applies no translation (CPU physical 0xfa000000 maps
> > > to bus address 0xfa000000).
> > >
> > > "lspci -b" shows the PCI bus addresses.
> >
> > Ah, thanks.
> >
> > It does seem, though, that the information overload in this thread is
> > causing confusion now. Peter shared some log output where there is
> > definitely MMIO translation being applied.
>
> Yes, I've done work on the rk3399 pcie controller which is why this
> caught my attention.
> The original issue still seems to exist:
> For some reason:
> commit 9d57e61bf723 ("of/pci: Add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 to resource flags for
> 64-bit memory addresses")
> causes allocation issues now.
> The original description of the issue aligned with issues I was having
> bringing up the rk356x pcie controller.
>
> >
> > > > [    6.673497] pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [io  0x0000-0xfffff]
> > > > (bus address [0x3f700000-0x3f7fffff])
> > > > [    6.674642] pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [mem
> > > > 0x300000000-0x33f6fffff] (bus address [0x00000000-0x3f6fffff])
> >
> > In this case, the I/O translation definitely looks wrong. On a typical
> > ARM DT system, you will see something like
> >
> > [    1.500324] Remapped I/O 0x0000000067f00000 to [io  0x0000-0xffff window]
> > [    1.500522] pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [io  0x0000-0xffff window]
> >
> > The MMIO window looks correct, but I suspect that both 0x82000000 and
> > 0x83000000 in the DT ranges are describing the resource window as
> > prefetchable, preventing the allocation of non-prefetchable BARs in
> > this window.
>
> I checked with lspci -vvvbxxxxnn:
>
> Before your changes:
> 00:00.0 PCI bridge [0604]: Fuzhou Rockchip Electronics Co., Ltd Device
> [1d87:3566] (rev 01) (prog-if 00 [Normal decode])
>         I/O behind bridge: 00001000-00001fff [size=4K]
>         Memory behind bridge: 50000000-500fffff [size=1M]
>         Prefetchable memory behind bridge:
> 0000000040000000-000000004fffffff [size=256M]
> 01:00.0 VGA compatible controller [0300]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
> [AMD/ATI] Turks PRO [Radeon HD 7570] [1002:675d] (prog-if 00 [VGA
> controller])
>         Region 0: Memory at 40000000 (64-bit, prefetchable)
>         Region 2: Memory at 50000000 (64-bit, non-prefetchable)
>         Region 4: I/O ports at 7f701000
>         Expansion ROM at 50020000 [disabled]
>
> After your changes:
> lspci -vvvbxxxxnn
> 00:00.0 PCI bridge: Fuzhou Rockchip Electronics Co., Ltd Device 3566
> (rev 01) (prog-if 00 [Normal decode])
>         I/O behind bridge: 00001000-00001fff [size=4K]
>         Memory behind bridge: 10000000-100fffff [size=1M]
>         Prefetchable memory behind bridge:
> 0000000000000000-000000000fffffff [size=256M]
> 01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
> [AMD/ATI] Turks PRO [Radeon HD 7570] (prog-if 00 [VGA controller])
>         Region 0: Memory at <unassigned> (64-bit, prefetchable) [virtual]
>         Region 2: Memory at 10000000 (64-bit, non-prefetchable) [virtual]
>         Region 4: I/O ports at 1000 [virtual]
>         Expansion ROM at 10020000 [disabled]
>
> >
> > Peter, for the configuration listed here, could you try something like
> >
> > ranges = <0x1000000 0x0 0x0 [IO base in the CPU address map] [IO size]>,
> >          <0x2000000 0x0 0x0 [MMIO base in the CPU address map] [MMIO size]>;
>
> That was similar to what I already had, removing the relocatable flag
> and setting both addresses to 0x0 are the changes.
>
> Here is the result:

<snip>

I'm not sure which conclusion I am supposed to draw from that output.

Are you saying the output looks ok but the GPU card does not work?

Is your system DMA coherent? I would not be very optimistic about
these drivers working out of the box on non-coherent systems.

_______________________________________________
Linux-rockchip mailing list
Linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
To: Peter Geis <pgwipeout@gmail.com>
Cc: "Bjorn Helgaas" <helgaas@kernel.org>,
	"Punit Agrawal" <punitagrawal@gmail.com>,
	"Robin Murphy" <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	"Alexandru Elisei" <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>,
	"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..."
	<linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org>,
	arm-mail-list <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"Heiko Stuebner" <heiko.stuebner@theobroma-systems.com>,
	"Leonardo Bras" <leobras.c@gmail.com>,
	"Rob Herring" <robh@kernel.org>, PCI <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Christian König" <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] rockpro64: PCI BAR reassignment broken by commit 9d57e61bf723 ("of/pci: Add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 to resource flags for 64-bit memory addresses")
Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 16:18:02 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMj1kXF0Gh+CNJ+Y=Xv_1Z1gRpubBQLL81pUHgZ0DXNUO-MYqQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMdYzYptcAyb3U3ZZvNL8GwdcP-a2X8MX+rji2z0nEuiw0Br5A@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, 25 May 2021 at 22:03, Peter Geis <pgwipeout@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 3:43 PM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 25 May 2021 at 21:15, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 05:54:56PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 25 May 2021 at 17:34, Peter Geis <pgwipeout@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > >> > On 2021-05-18 10:09, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> [..]
> > > > > > > >> >> [    0.305183] rockchip-pcie f8000000.pcie: host bridge /pcie@f8000000 ranges:
> > > > > > > >> >> [    0.305248] rockchip-pcie f8000000.pcie:      MEM 0x00fa000000..0x00fbdfffff -> 0x00fa000000
> > > > > > > >> >> [    0.305285] rockchip-pcie f8000000.pcie:       IO 0x00fbe00000..0x00fbefffff -> 0x00fbe00000
> > > > > > > >> >> [    0.373705] rockchip-pcie f8000000.pcie: PCI host bridge to bus 0000:00
> > > > > > > >> >> [    0.373730] pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [bus 00-1f]
> > > > > > > >> >> [    0.373751] pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [mem 0xfa000000-0xfbdfffff 64bit]
> > > > > > > >> >> [    0.373777] pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [io  0x0000-0xfffff] (bus address [0xfbe00000-0xfbefffff])
> > >
> > > > ... For some reason, lspci translates the BAR values to CPU
> > > > addresses, but the PCI side addresses are within 32-bits.
> > >
> > > lspci shows BARs as CPU physical addresses by default.  These are the
> > > same addresses you would see in pdev->resource[n] and the same as BAR
> > > values you would see in dmesg.
> > >
> > > A 64-bit CPU physical address can certainly be translated by the host
> > > bridge to a 32-bit PCI address.  But that's not happening here because
> > > this host bridge applies no translation (CPU physical 0xfa000000 maps
> > > to bus address 0xfa000000).
> > >
> > > "lspci -b" shows the PCI bus addresses.
> >
> > Ah, thanks.
> >
> > It does seem, though, that the information overload in this thread is
> > causing confusion now. Peter shared some log output where there is
> > definitely MMIO translation being applied.
>
> Yes, I've done work on the rk3399 pcie controller which is why this
> caught my attention.
> The original issue still seems to exist:
> For some reason:
> commit 9d57e61bf723 ("of/pci: Add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 to resource flags for
> 64-bit memory addresses")
> causes allocation issues now.
> The original description of the issue aligned with issues I was having
> bringing up the rk356x pcie controller.
>
> >
> > > > [    6.673497] pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [io  0x0000-0xfffff]
> > > > (bus address [0x3f700000-0x3f7fffff])
> > > > [    6.674642] pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [mem
> > > > 0x300000000-0x33f6fffff] (bus address [0x00000000-0x3f6fffff])
> >
> > In this case, the I/O translation definitely looks wrong. On a typical
> > ARM DT system, you will see something like
> >
> > [    1.500324] Remapped I/O 0x0000000067f00000 to [io  0x0000-0xffff window]
> > [    1.500522] pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [io  0x0000-0xffff window]
> >
> > The MMIO window looks correct, but I suspect that both 0x82000000 and
> > 0x83000000 in the DT ranges are describing the resource window as
> > prefetchable, preventing the allocation of non-prefetchable BARs in
> > this window.
>
> I checked with lspci -vvvbxxxxnn:
>
> Before your changes:
> 00:00.0 PCI bridge [0604]: Fuzhou Rockchip Electronics Co., Ltd Device
> [1d87:3566] (rev 01) (prog-if 00 [Normal decode])
>         I/O behind bridge: 00001000-00001fff [size=4K]
>         Memory behind bridge: 50000000-500fffff [size=1M]
>         Prefetchable memory behind bridge:
> 0000000040000000-000000004fffffff [size=256M]
> 01:00.0 VGA compatible controller [0300]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
> [AMD/ATI] Turks PRO [Radeon HD 7570] [1002:675d] (prog-if 00 [VGA
> controller])
>         Region 0: Memory at 40000000 (64-bit, prefetchable)
>         Region 2: Memory at 50000000 (64-bit, non-prefetchable)
>         Region 4: I/O ports at 7f701000
>         Expansion ROM at 50020000 [disabled]
>
> After your changes:
> lspci -vvvbxxxxnn
> 00:00.0 PCI bridge: Fuzhou Rockchip Electronics Co., Ltd Device 3566
> (rev 01) (prog-if 00 [Normal decode])
>         I/O behind bridge: 00001000-00001fff [size=4K]
>         Memory behind bridge: 10000000-100fffff [size=1M]
>         Prefetchable memory behind bridge:
> 0000000000000000-000000000fffffff [size=256M]
> 01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
> [AMD/ATI] Turks PRO [Radeon HD 7570] (prog-if 00 [VGA controller])
>         Region 0: Memory at <unassigned> (64-bit, prefetchable) [virtual]
>         Region 2: Memory at 10000000 (64-bit, non-prefetchable) [virtual]
>         Region 4: I/O ports at 1000 [virtual]
>         Expansion ROM at 10020000 [disabled]
>
> >
> > Peter, for the configuration listed here, could you try something like
> >
> > ranges = <0x1000000 0x0 0x0 [IO base in the CPU address map] [IO size]>,
> >          <0x2000000 0x0 0x0 [MMIO base in the CPU address map] [MMIO size]>;
>
> That was similar to what I already had, removing the relocatable flag
> and setting both addresses to 0x0 are the changes.
>
> Here is the result:

<snip>

I'm not sure which conclusion I am supposed to draw from that output.

Are you saying the output looks ok but the GPU card does not work?

Is your system DMA coherent? I would not be very optimistic about
these drivers working out of the box on non-coherent systems.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply	other threads:[~2021-05-26 14:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 99+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-05-18  9:09 [BUG] rockpro64: PCI BAR reassignment broken by commit 9d57e61bf723 ("of/pci: Add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 to resource flags for 64-bit memory addresses") Alexandru Elisei
2021-05-18  9:09 ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-05-18  9:09 ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-05-19  6:28 ` Qu Wenruo
2021-05-19  6:28   ` Qu Wenruo
2021-05-19  6:28   ` Qu Wenruo
2021-05-19  7:05   ` Qu Wenruo
2021-05-19  7:05     ` Qu Wenruo
2021-05-19  7:05     ` Qu Wenruo
2021-05-19  9:20     ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-05-19  9:20       ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-05-19  9:20       ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-05-19 11:16       ` Qu Wenruo
2021-05-19 11:16         ` Qu Wenruo
2021-05-19 11:16         ` Qu Wenruo
2021-05-19 11:27 ` Robin Murphy
2021-05-19 11:27   ` Robin Murphy
2021-05-19 11:27   ` Robin Murphy
2021-05-19 13:17   ` Peter Geis
2021-05-19 13:17     ` Peter Geis
2021-05-19 13:17     ` Peter Geis
2021-05-23 11:03   ` Punit Agrawal
2021-05-23 11:03     ` Punit Agrawal
2021-05-23 11:03     ` Punit Agrawal
2021-05-23 12:10     ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-05-23 12:10       ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-05-23 12:10       ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-05-25 13:42       ` Punit Agrawal
2021-05-25 13:42         ` Punit Agrawal
2021-05-25 13:42         ` Punit Agrawal
2021-05-25 13:54         ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-05-25 13:54           ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-05-25 13:54           ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-05-25 15:34           ` Peter Geis
2021-05-25 15:34             ` Peter Geis
2021-05-25 15:34             ` Peter Geis
2021-05-25 15:54             ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-05-25 15:54               ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-05-25 15:54               ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-05-25 16:23               ` Peter Geis
2021-05-25 16:23                 ` Peter Geis
2021-05-25 16:23                 ` Peter Geis
2021-05-25 16:44                 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-05-25 16:44                   ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-05-25 16:44                   ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-05-25 17:01                   ` Peter Geis
2021-05-25 17:01                     ` Peter Geis
2021-05-25 17:01                     ` Peter Geis
2021-05-25 17:18                     ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-05-25 17:18                       ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-05-25 17:18                       ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-05-25 17:37                       ` Peter Geis
2021-05-25 17:37                         ` Peter Geis
2021-05-25 17:37                         ` Peter Geis
2021-05-26 13:55                       ` Christian König
2021-05-26 13:55                         ` Christian König
2021-05-26 13:55                         ` Christian König
2021-05-26 14:15                         ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-05-26 14:15                           ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-05-26 14:15                           ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-05-25 17:25                     ` Robin Murphy
2021-05-25 17:25                       ` Robin Murphy
2021-05-25 17:25                       ` Robin Murphy
2021-05-25 17:34                       ` Peter Geis
2021-05-25 17:34                         ` Peter Geis
2021-05-25 17:34                         ` Peter Geis
2021-05-25 18:55                         ` Robin Murphy
2021-05-25 18:55                           ` Robin Murphy
2021-05-25 18:55                           ` Robin Murphy
2021-05-25 19:15               ` Bjorn Helgaas
2021-05-25 19:15                 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2021-05-25 19:15                 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2021-05-25 19:43                 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-05-25 19:43                   ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-05-25 19:43                   ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-05-25 20:03                   ` Peter Geis
2021-05-25 20:03                     ` Peter Geis
2021-05-25 20:03                     ` Peter Geis
2021-05-26 14:18                     ` Ard Biesheuvel [this message]
2021-05-26 14:18                       ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-05-26 14:18                       ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-05-25 16:59           ` Anand Moon
2021-05-25 16:59             ` Anand Moon
2021-05-25 16:59             ` Anand Moon
2021-05-25 17:14             ` Robin Murphy
2021-05-25 17:14               ` Robin Murphy
2021-05-25 17:14               ` Robin Murphy
2021-05-25 17:42               ` Peter Geis
2021-05-25 17:42                 ` Peter Geis
2021-05-25 17:42                 ` Peter Geis
2021-05-25 22:36           ` Punit Agrawal
2021-05-25 22:36             ` Punit Agrawal
2021-05-25 22:36             ` Punit Agrawal
2021-05-26 15:37           ` Rob Herring
2021-05-26 15:37             ` Rob Herring
2021-05-26 15:37             ` Rob Herring
2021-05-26 16:35             ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-05-26 16:35               ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-05-26 16:35               ` Ard Biesheuvel

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAMj1kXF0Gh+CNJ+Y=Xv_1Z1gRpubBQLL81pUHgZ0DXNUO-MYqQ@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=ardb@kernel.org \
    --cc=alexandru.elisei@arm.com \
    --cc=ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com \
    --cc=heiko.stuebner@theobroma-systems.com \
    --cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
    --cc=leobras.c@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=pgwipeout@gmail.com \
    --cc=punitagrawal@gmail.com \
    --cc=robh@kernel.org \
    --cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.