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 wrote:
> > > On Saturday 12 July 2014, Rob Clark wrote:
> > >> >> Was there actually a good reason for having the device link
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 08:57:31AM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
[...]
> > The way that Thierry's binding does that is the obvious solution to this,
> > and it mirrors what we do in practically every other subsystem. I definitely
> > want the SMMU
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 bin
Hi Laurent,
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 instead of looking it up when the deviced is attach
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 5:43 AM, 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 wrote:
>> > On Saturday 12 July 2014, Rob Clark wrote:
>> >> >> Was there actually a good reason for having the device link to the
>>
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 01:57:31PM +0100, Rob Clark wrote:
> 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 wou
