Hi Robin, >-----Original Message----- >From: linux-arm-msm-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-arm-msm-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robin Murphy >Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 11:28 PM >To: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx>; Sricharan R <sricharan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >Cc: will.deacon@xxxxxxx; joro@xxxxxxxxxx; iommu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm- >msm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx >Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 08/12] iommu/arm-smmu: Clean up early-probing workarounds > >On 19/01/17 16:50, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 08:35:52PM +0530, Sricharan R wrote: >>> From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@xxxxxxx> >>> >>> Now that the appropriate ordering is enforced via profe-deferral of >>> masters in core code, rip it all out and bask in the simplicity. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@xxxxxxx> >>> [Sricharan: Rebased on top of ACPI IORT SMMU series] >>> Signed-off-by: Sricharan R <sricharan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> * No change >> >> Well, a tad too early on the series for ACPI, aka if we bisect the >> series here you would break ACPI. >> >> Totally agree on the patch, but you should move it to the end of the >> series. > >Indeed - I think a more appropriate ordering of the current patch >numbers would be: > >1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 5+10 (squashed), 6, 11, 7, 8, 12 > Ok, will repost with this order. Regards, Sricharan -- 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
