From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753214AbdFMLtz (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:49:55 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:47152 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753128AbdFMLtx (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:49:53 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 12:51:10 +0100 From: Lorenzo Pieralisi To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Lv , Geetha sowjanya , Robin Murphy , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Will Deacon , Hanjun Guo , Sudeep Holla , "open list:AMD IOMMU (AMD-VI)" , Robert Moore , Jon Masters , Linux Kernel Mailing List , robert.richter@cavium.com, Catalin Marinas , Sunil Goutham , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , ACPI Devel Maling List , geethasowjanya.akula@gmail.com, "devel@acpica.org" , linu.cherian@cavium.com, Charles Garcia Tobin , Rob Herring Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/3] Cavium ThunderX2 SMMUv3 errata workarounds Message-ID: <20170613115110.GA2868@red-moon> References: <1496145821-3411-1-git-send-email-gakula@caviumnetworks.com> <20170608163213.GA2216@red-moon> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Rafael, Lv, On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 07:13:24PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi > wrote: > > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 05:33:38PM +0530, Geetha sowjanya wrote: > >> Cavium ThunderX2 SMMUv3 implementation has two Silicon Erratas. > >> 1. Errata ID #74 > >> SMMU register alias Page 1 is not implemented > >> 2. Errata ID #126 > >> SMMU doesnt support unique IRQ lines and also MSI for gerror, > >> eventq and cmdq-sync > >> > >> The following patchset does software workaround for these two erratas. > >> > >> This series is based on patchset. > >> https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg578443.html > > > > Yes so it is not standalone. How are we going to merge these > > ACPI IORT/ACPICA/SMMU patches - inclusive of: > > > > [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg586458.html > > > > Rafael, do ACPICA patches go upstream via the ACPI tree pull request ? > > Not as a rule. So I take it as the can they go in as separate pull (standalone ACPICA updates) ? > > To remove dependency on ACPICA changes this series needs updating > > anyway and for [1] above I think the only solution is for all the > > patches to go via the ACPI tree (if ACPICA updates go upstream with it). > > I think we may ask Lv to backport the header changes once they have > been merged into Linux. > > Lv, would that work? I was asking to understand how to queue some patches for the upcoming merge window that have an ACPICA dependency, how are we supposed to handle that ? I would like to avoid cross tree dependencies, that's why I asked about the ACPI pull request, so that IORT patches could go via ACPI tree too this time along with ACPICA changes just trying to make it simple. Please let us know, thanks a lot. Lorenzo