Felipe, > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-omap-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-omap- > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Felipe Contreras > Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 10:56 AM > To: Marathe, Yogesh > Cc: Premi, Sanjeev; Tony Lindgren; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] omap3: Remove non-existent config option > > On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Marathe, Yogesh <yogesh_marathe@xxxxxx> > wrote: > >> When you merge iommu support, then either you enable > >> CONFIG_MPU_BRIDGE_IOMMU unconditionally, or you apply this patch, but > >> this patch alone will only break things. > > > > Any other driver which does not depend on bridge and interested in using > iommu should get the handle when iommu_get("iva2") is called. > > That's a hypothetical driver, right? The only driver that would ever > be interested in the "iva2" iommu is tidspbridge, and this patch would > brake it. > > > It is not happening in original case. I think there should not be > restrictions on other drivers to define un-related compile time define if > they just want to use iommu driver. I feel the implementation that is > breaking due to removal of this define should be fixed. > > I couldn't parse that correctly. However, what's wrong with the > proposal? Let's think about CONFIG_MPU_BRIDGE_IOMMU when the iommu > patches come. > Yogesh is coming from dsplink requirement to use iommu. I see his comment as why Bridge requirement should be imposed on other IPCs that need iommu. Thank you, Best regards, Hari -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
