On 17/10/2023 19:49, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 07:32:31PM +0100, Joao Martins wrote: > >> Jason, how do we usually handle this cross trees? check_feature() doesn't exist >> in your tree, but it does in Joerg's tree; meanwhile >> check_feature_on_all_iommus() gets renamed to check_feature(). Should I need to >> go with it, do I rebase against linux-next? I have been assuming that your tree >> must compile; or worst-case different maintainer pull each other's trees. > > We didn't make any special preparation to speed this, so I would wait > till next cycle to take the AMD patches > > Thus we should look at the vt-d patches if this is to go in this > cycle. > >> Alternatively: I can check the counter directly to replicate the amd_iommu_efr >> check under the current helper I made (amd_iommu_hd_support) and then change it >> after the fact... That should lead to less dependencies? > > Or this > I think I'll go with this (once Suravee responds) > We are fast running out of time though :) Yeah, I know :( I am trying to get this out tomorrow Still trying to get the AMD patches too, as that's the hardware I have been testing (and has more mass for external people to play around) and I also have a higher degree of confidence there. Joao
