On 02/06/2021 16:58, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 12:40:49PM +0100, Will Deacon 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. >> >> Okey doke. Thierry -- please let me know which patches I can queue. Having >> the SMMU driver changes in the IOMMU tree really helps in case of conflicts >> with other SMMU changes. As I say, I can put stuff on a separate branch for >> you if it helps. > > Given that the SMMU patches have a build-time dependency on the first > patch in the series, and the series depends on the unification series, I > think Krzysztof would have to pull the memory controller branch that I > have with Dmitry's work, apply the unification series on top and then > take patch 1 of this series on top of that. That's the state that you'd > have to pull into the SMMU tree to get the right dependencies. > > The SMMU pieces are the leaf of the dependency tree, so technically no > separate branch is needed, because I don't think anybody would have to > pull from it. However, a separate branch might make it easier to back > any of this work out if we have to. > > Krzysztof, I do plan on sending out a v3 of the unification series to > address the two cleanups that Dmitry and you have pointed out. After > that I can send out v3 of this series to fix the ordering issue that > Krishna had mentioned. After all of those are applied, would you be able > to provide a stable branch for Will's SMMU tree? Yes, I will provide a stable branch/tag. Best regards, Krzysztof
