On 02/06/2021 16:53, Thierry Reding wrote: > 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. Right, you already wrote it in the first email in this thread, I just reversed words in my head... Then as you wrote - take Dmitry's changes and share them via pull to me. I'll put on top the unification series, then #1 from this SMMU series and finally I'll provide a pull request for Will so his SMMU can go on. Best regards, Krzysztof
