On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 02:22:01PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Saturday 12 July 2014, Rob Clark wrote:
Was there actually a good reason for having the device link to the
iommu rather than the other way around? How much would people hate it
if I just ignore the generic bindings and
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 10:43:41AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 01:57:31PM +0100, Rob Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Saturday 12 July 2014, Rob Clark wrote:
Was there actually a good reason for having the device
Hi Khiem,
On Monday 14 July 2014 09:19:23 Khiem Nguyen wrote:
On 7/10/2014 7:37 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Thursday 10 July 2014 09:03:26 Khiem Nguyen wrote:
On 5/15/2014 7:40 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
Cache the micro-TLB number in archdata allocated in the .add_device
handler
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 2:24 AM, Thierry Reding
thierry.red...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 08:57:31AM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
[...]
The way that Thierry's binding does that is the obvious solution to this,
and
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 05:14:05PM +0100, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 16:45 +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 04:38:18PM +0100, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 12:34 +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
Do you think that returning something like
On 7/11/2014 3:20 AM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 09:51:51AM -0700, Olav Haugan wrote:
+int iommu_map_range(struct iommu_domain *domain, unsigned int iova,
+struct scatterlist *sg, unsigned int len, int prot)
+{
+if (unlikely(domain-ops-map_range == NULL))
