On 2023-05-02 01:15:24, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On 02/05/2023 01:13, Marijn Suijten wrote: > > On 2023-04-30 23:35:54, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > >> dpu_rm_init() contains checks for block->id values. These were logical > >> in the vendor driver, when one can not be sure which values were passed > >> from DT. In the upstream driver this is not necessary: the catalog is a > >> part of the driver, we control specified IDs. > >> > >> Suggested-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > I was going to send this on top of [1] to prevent conflicts, but it > > seems you beat me to it and also based it on top of that series, though > > without mentioning the dependency in the cover letter. > > I hoped that you'd include such a change into the mentioned series. But > after waiting for some time I went and sent this out, as I was not sure > about your intentions and time budget. I intended to send it as a separate series to not clobber the others, but it does result in yet another dependency that becomes harder and harder to keep track of as all those series get amended and resent repeatedly. The linked series' v3 wasn't a week old yet :) - Marijn > > > > > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20230418-dpu-drop-useless-for-lookup-v3-3-e8d869eea455@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > Reviewed-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
