> From: Cho KyongHo [mailto:pullip.cho@xxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 8:24 PM > > > From: grundler@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:grundler@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Grant Grundler > > Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 2:23 AM > > > > On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 5:29 AM, Cho KyongHo <pullip.cho@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > The current exynos-iommu(System MMU) driver does not work autonomously > > > since it is lack of support for power management of peripheral blocks. > > ... > > > Patch summary: > > > [PATCH v7 1/9] iommu/exynos: do not include removed header > > > [PATCH v7 2/9] iommu/exynos: add missing cache flush for removed page table entries > > > [PATCH v7 3/9] iommu/exynos: fix page table maintenance > > > [PATCH v7 4/9] iommu/exynos: allocate lv2 page table from own slab > > > [PATCH v7 5/9] iommu/exynos: change rwlock to spinlock > > > [PATCH v7 6/9] clk: exynos5250: add gate clock descriptions of System MMU > > > [PATCH v7 7/9] ARM: dts: Add description of System MMU of Exynos SoCs > > > [PATCH v7 8/9] iommu/exynos: support for device tree > > > [PATCH v7 9/9] iommu/exynos: add bus notifier for registering System MMU > > > > Cho, > > Of the above patches, nearly all have been applied to chromeos-3.8 > > (kernel-next git tree) by Doug Anderson and others. > > > > AFAICT, the only ones not applied are: > > [v7,3/9] iommu/exynos: fix page table maintenance > > [v7,6/9] clk: exynos5250: add gate clock descriptions of System MMU > > (conflicts in this one) > > [v7,7/9] ARM: dts: Add description of System MMU of Exynos SoCs > > (depends on 6/9) > > > > We also already have parts of: > > [v7,9/9] iommu/exynos: add bus notifier for registering System MMU > > > > Some of those are being further discussed but I've lost track now > > exactly which ones. > > > > I'm telling you about chromeos-3.8 status since the adopted changes > > have been reviewed (by me and others) are being tested manually here > > on several different Samsung Exynos platforms (including 5250 which is > > our "snow" platform). Not sure how you should to mark those patches > > since they aren't identical to your changes (which apply to post 3.10 > > kernels, not 3.8). You might consider splitting those patches out > > from the 4 I've listed above to get that series accepted upstream > > since the additional review/testing should provide some confidence > > those patches are good. > > > > I understand what you are concerning about. > Have you applied v6 patchset? > > I will try to split the patches and make the changes from v6 > on top of the v6 patcheset. > Actually, as you know, the previous patches include setting a System MMU as the parent device of its master device in probe() of System MMU. I asked Greg KH about changing device hierarchy in probe() and he answered that it is not a good idea because it modifies sysfs even though probe() of System MMU driver is called before sysfs is constructed. That's why I uses genpd_pm_ops. It results in big change in the patches after registering device tree. I want to ask your opinion about this change :) > > cheers, > > grant > > Thank you. > > Cho KyonogHo. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |