Hi Lorenzo, >-----Original Message----- >From: linux-arm-kernel [mailto:linux-arm-kernel-boun...@lists.infradead.org] >On Behalf Of Lorenzo Pieralisi >Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 11:44 PM >To: Sricharan <sricha...@codeaurora.org> >Cc: linux-arm-...@vger.kernel.org; j...@8bytes.org; will.dea...@arm.com; >tf...@chromium.org; iommu@lists.linux- >foundation.org; srinivas.kandaga...@linaro.org; >laurent.pinch...@ideasonboard.com; 'Robin Murphy' <robin.mur...@arm.com>; >linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org; m.szyprow...@samsung.com >Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 0/8] IOMMU probe deferral support > >On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 11:12:08PM +0530, Sricharan wrote: > >[...] > >> >Cool. We're rather hoping that the ACPI stuff is good to go for 4.10 >> >now, so it's probably worth pulling the rest of that in (beyond the one >> >patch I picked) to make sure the of_dma_configure/acpi_dma_configure >> >paths don't inadvertently diverge. >> > >> >> I rebased and was testing your branch with Lorenzo's series. One thing >> i am still trying to get right is the acpi_dma_configure call. With your >> series dma_configure calls pci_dma/of_dma configure, so i am just adding >> acpi_dma_configure call there for non-pci ACPI devices as well. I see that >> acpi_dma_configure right now is called from acpi_bind_one and >> iort_add_smmu_platform_device, both go through the really_probe function >> path, so moving acpi_dma_configure from the above the two functions >> to dma_configure. I remember we discussed this on another thread, so >> hopefully it is correct. I do not have an platform to test the ACPI though. >> I will take some testing help on V4 for this. > >I am happy to test it for you please just send me a pointer at your v4 >code. > I posted the v4 and CCed you there. So i am little skeptical about the acpi changes that i have posted. I was checking for a function equivalent in acpi as of_match_node in DT, to figure out if the iommu_spec.np that the master device is pointing to is there in the iommu_of_table and based on that we can decide if to defer the probe. I was seeing iort_scan_node was its equivalent. But if that is not correct, then last patch has to be reworked. Anyways will be good to know your feedback on this.
Regards, Sricharan _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
