On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Ionut Nicu <ionut.nicu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 01:36 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:35 PM, Fernando Guzman Lugo <x0095840@xxxxxx> wrote: >> > Now the tidspbridge uses the API's from >> > iovmm module. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Fernando Guzman Lugo <x0095840@xxxxxx> >> >> NAK. This patch doesn't work... I guess it's supposed to. >> >> So far I've found these errors, but it still doesn't work, maybe we >> should start thinking of reverting the whole iommu stuff: > > I also tested it with the userspace-dspbridge tools and it doesn't work > for me either. > > Maybe it's better to revert this patch series for now and re-submit it > when all necessary patches get merged and it actually works on top of > the staging-next tree? I was thinking that rather than reverting it might make sense to have configuration option to choose from one to the other. I'm trying to minimize the changes on this patch to see what else I can catch, apply the fixes on top of staging-next, and then add support for the old mmu part, hopefully in a form that is similar to the current iommu. -- Felipe Contreras -- 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
