On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 12:44:58PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 02/06/2021 10:52, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 09:35:13AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 02/06/2021 09:33, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>> On 01/06/2021 20:08, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 01:26:46PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 07:05:28PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 07:26:09PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >>>>>>> From: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>> Probably best if I queue 3-6 on a separate branch once you send a v3,
> >>>>> then Krzysztof can pull that in if he needs it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Patch 5 has a build-time dependency on patch 1, so they need to go in
> >>>> together. The reason why I suggested Krzysztof pick these up is because
> >>>> there is a restructuring series that this depends on, which will go into
> >>>> Krzysztof's tree. So in order to pull in 3-6, you'd get a bunch of other
> >>>> and mostly unrelated stuff as well.
> >>>
> >>> I missed that part... what other series are needed for this one? Except
> >>> Dmitry's power management set I do not have anything in my sight for
> >>> Tegras memory controllers.
> >>>
> >>> Anyway, I can take the memory bits and provide a stable tag with these.
> >>> Recently there was quite a lot work around Tegra memory controllers, so
> >>> this makes especially sense if new patches appear.
> >>
> >> OK, I think I have now the patchset you talked about - "memory: tegra:
> >> Driver unification" v2, right?
> > 
> > Yes, that's the one. That series is fairly self-contained, but Dmitry's
> > power management set has dependencies that pull in the regulator, clock
> > and ARM SoC trees.
> > 
> > I did a test merge of the driver unification series with a branch that
> > has Dmitry's patches and all the dependencies and there are no conflicts
> > so that, fortunately, doesn't further complicates things.
> > 
> > Do you want me to send you a pull request with Dmitry's memory
> > controller changes? You could then apply the unification series on top,
> > which should allow this SMMU series to apply cleanly on top of that.
> 
> Makes sense and it looks quite bulletproof for future changes. Let's do
> like this. I will apply your patch 1/10 from this v2 on top of it and
> driver unification later.

The SMMU series here depends on the unification series, so the
unification series needs to go first. It'd be a fair bit of work to
reverse that because the ->probe_device() callback implemented by the
first patch of this SMMU series is part of the tegra_mc_ops structure
that's introduced in the unification series.

Thierry