On 17/10/2023 20:03, Joao Martins wrote: > 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) > Or just keep current code -- which is valid -- at this point and doesn't involve replicating anything >> 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
