On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 12:44:58PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 02/06/2021 10:52, Thierry Reding wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 09:35:13AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> On 02/06/2021 09:33, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>> On 01/06/2021 20:08, Thierry Reding wrote: > >>>> On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 01:26:46PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > >>>>> On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 07:05:28PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > >>>>>> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 07:26:09PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > >>>>>>> From: Thierry Reding <treding@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> Probably best if I queue 3-6 on a separate branch once you send a v3, > >>>>> then Krzysztof can pull that in if he needs it. > >>>> > >>>> Patch 5 has a build-time dependency on patch 1, so they need to go in > >>>> together. The reason why I suggested Krzysztof pick these up is because > >>>> there is a restructuring series that this depends on, which will go into > >>>> Krzysztof's tree. So in order to pull in 3-6, you'd get a bunch of other > >>>> and mostly unrelated stuff as well. > >>> > >>> I missed that part... what other series are needed for this one? Except > >>> Dmitry's power management set I do not have anything in my sight for > >>> Tegras memory controllers. > >>> > >>> Anyway, I can take the memory bits and provide a stable tag with these. > >>> Recently there was quite a lot work around Tegra memory controllers, so > >>> this makes especially sense if new patches appear. > >> > >> OK, I think I have now the patchset you talked about - "memory: tegra: > >> Driver unification" v2, right? > > > > Yes, that's the one. That series is fairly self-contained, but Dmitry's > > power management set has dependencies that pull in the regulator, clock > > and ARM SoC trees. > > > > I did a test merge of the driver unification series with a branch that > > has Dmitry's patches and all the dependencies and there are no conflicts > > so that, fortunately, doesn't further complicates things. > > > > Do you want me to send you a pull request with Dmitry's memory > > controller changes? You could then apply the unification series on top, > > which should allow this SMMU series to apply cleanly on top of that. > > Makes sense and it looks quite bulletproof for future changes. Let's do > like this. I will apply your patch 1/10 from this v2 on top of it and > driver unification later. The SMMU series here depends on the unification series, so the unification series needs to go first. It'd be a fair bit of work to reverse that because the ->probe_device() callback implemented by the first patch of this SMMU series is part of the tegra_mc_ops structure that's introduced in the unification series. Thierry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
