sjur.brandeland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes: > I actually like this new approach better. > It solves the issues Michael has pointed out, and we don't have to > think through side effects of weired combination of feature bits. Agreed. Just one thing, should it depend on CONFIG_REMOTEPROC? And have OMAP_REMOTEPROC depend on CONFIG_HAS_DMA (if it doesn't already). Thanks, Rusty. PS. I've reserved 11 for you in the latest virtio spec draft. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
