From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Sricharan" Subject: RE: [PATCH V5 08/12] iommu/arm-smmu: Clean up early-probing workarounds Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 12:02:13 +0530 Message-ID: <001101d272e6$f365b820$da312860$@codeaurora.org> References: <1484838356-24962-1-git-send-email-sricharan@codeaurora.org> <1484838356-24962-9-git-send-email-sricharan@codeaurora.org> <20170119165053.GC28483@red-moon> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-us List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: iommu-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: iommu-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: 'Robin Murphy' , 'Lorenzo Pieralisi' Cc: linux-arm-msm-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, will.deacon-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org, iommu-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org Hi Robin, >-----Original Message----- >From: linux-arm-msm-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org [mailto:linux-arm-msm-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Robin Murphy >Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 11:28 PM >To: Lorenzo Pieralisi ; Sricharan R >Cc: will.deacon-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org; joro-zLv9SwRftAIdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org; iommu-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org; linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org; linux-arm- >msm-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org; m.szyprowski-Sze3O3UU22JBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org >Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 08/12] iommu/arm-smmu: Clean up early-probing workarounds > >On 19/01/17 16:50, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 08:35:52PM +0530, Sricharan R wrote: >>> From: Robin Murphy >>> >>> Now that the appropriate ordering is enforced via profe-deferral of >>> masters in core code, rip it all out and bask in the simplicity. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy >>> [Sricharan: Rebased on top of ACPI IORT SMMU series] >>> Signed-off-by: Sricharan R >>> --- >>> * No change >> >> Well, a tad too early on the series for ACPI, aka if we bisect the >> series here you would break ACPI. >> >> Totally agree on the patch, but you should move it to the end of the >> series. > >Indeed - I think a more appropriate ordering of the current patch >numbers would be: > >1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 5+10 (squashed), 6, 11, 7, 8, 12 > Ok, will repost with this order. Regards, Sricharan From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sricharan@codeaurora.org (Sricharan) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 12:02:13 +0530 Subject: [PATCH V5 08/12] iommu/arm-smmu: Clean up early-probing workarounds In-Reply-To: References: <1484838356-24962-1-git-send-email-sricharan@codeaurora.org> <1484838356-24962-9-git-send-email-sricharan@codeaurora.org> <20170119165053.GC28483@red-moon> Message-ID: <001101d272e6$f365b820$da312860$@codeaurora.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Robin, >-----Original Message----- From: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-arm-msm-owner at vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Robin Murphy >Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 11:28 PM >To: Lorenzo Pieralisi ; Sricharan R >Cc: will.deacon at arm.com; joro at 8bytes.org; iommu at lists.linux-foundation.org; linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org; linux-arm- >msm at vger.kernel.org; m.szyprowski at samsung.com >Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 08/12] iommu/arm-smmu: Clean up early-probing workarounds > >On 19/01/17 16:50, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 08:35:52PM +0530, Sricharan R wrote: >>> From: Robin Murphy >>> >>> Now that the appropriate ordering is enforced via profe-deferral of >>> masters in core code, rip it all out and bask in the simplicity. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy >>> [Sricharan: Rebased on top of ACPI IORT SMMU series] >>> Signed-off-by: Sricharan R >>> --- >>> * No change >> >> Well, a tad too early on the series for ACPI, aka if we bisect the >> series here you would break ACPI. >> >> Totally agree on the patch, but you should move it to the end of the >> series. > >Indeed - I think a more appropriate ordering of the current patch >numbers would be: > >1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 5+10 (squashed), 6, 11, 7, 8, 12 > Ok, will repost with this order. Regards, Sricharan