On 2016/12/29 22:44, Sinan Kaya wrote: > On 12/25/2016 8:31 PM, Hanjun Guo wrote: >>> A type->setup() would be somewhat cleaner I think, but then it's more >>> code. Whichever works better I guess. :-) >> Agree, I will demo the type->setup() way and send out the patch for review, >> also I find one minor issue for the IORT code, will update that also for next >> version. > Can you provide details on what the minor issue is with the IORT code? It's about the mapping of NC (named component) -> SMMU -> ITS, we can describe it as two ID mappings: - NC->SMMU - NC->ITS And the code for now can work perfect for such id mappings, but if we want to support chained mapping NC -> SMMU -> ITS, we need to add extra code which in my [PATCH v5 10/14] ACPI: ARM64: IORT: rework iort_node_get_id() for NC->SMMU->ITS case, but I just scanned the first id mapping for now, I think I need to scan all the id mappings (but seems single id mappings don't need to do that, I will investigate it more). Thanks Hanjun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
