On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 8:22 AM, 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 u
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 use something that works for
> >> me instead. I mean, it isn
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 5:39 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 09:55:14PM +0100, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Thierry Reding
>> wrote:
>> > From: Thierry Reding
>> ok, so I was working through this to try to convert my
>> {qcom,msm}-iommu-v0 RFC
Hi Rob,
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 09:55:14PM +0100, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Thierry Reding
> wrote:
> > From: Thierry Reding
> ok, so I was working through this to try to convert my
> {qcom,msm}-iommu-v0 RFC over to using these bindings. For background,
> I was initial
