Hi Sricharan, On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 06:04:13AM +0530, Sricharan wrote: > Hi Lorenzo, > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: linux-arm-kernel [mailto:linux-arm-kernel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lorenzo Pieralisi > >Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 11:44 PM > >To: Sricharan <sricharan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >Cc: linux-arm-msm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; joro@xxxxxxxxxx; will.deacon@xxxxxxx; tfiga@xxxxxxxxxxxx; iommu@lists.linux- > >foundation.org; srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx; laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Robin Murphy' <robin.murphy@xxxxxxx>; > >linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx > >Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 0/8] IOMMU probe deferral support > > > >On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 11:12:08PM +0530, Sricharan wrote: > > > >[...] > > > >> >Cool. We're rather hoping that the ACPI stuff is good to go for 4.10 > >> >now, so it's probably worth pulling the rest of that in (beyond the one > >> >patch I picked) to make sure the of_dma_configure/acpi_dma_configure > >> >paths don't inadvertently diverge. > >> > > >> > >> I rebased and was testing your branch with Lorenzo's series. One thing > >> i am still trying to get right is the acpi_dma_configure call. With your > >> series dma_configure calls pci_dma/of_dma configure, so i am just adding > >> acpi_dma_configure call there for non-pci ACPI devices as well. I see that > >> acpi_dma_configure right now is called from acpi_bind_one and > >> iort_add_smmu_platform_device, both go through the really_probe function > >> path, so moving acpi_dma_configure from the above the two functions > >> to dma_configure. I remember we discussed this on another thread, so > >> hopefully it is correct. I do not have an platform to test the ACPI though. > >> I will take some testing help on V4 for this. > > > >I am happy to test it for you please just send me a pointer at your v4 > >code. > > > I posted the v4 and CCed you there. So i am little skeptical about the acpi > changes that i have posted. I was checking for a function equivalent > in acpi as of_match_node in DT, to figure out if the iommu_spec.np that > the master device is pointing to is there in the iommu_of_table and based > on that we can decide if to defer the probe. I was seeing iort_scan_node > was its equivalent. But if that is not correct, then last patch has to be reworked. > Anyways will be good to know your feedback on this. Sure I will test it asap, thanks for putting it together. Thanks, Lorenzo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
