Hi,
>On 2017-02-01 13:52, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
>>
>> I debugged the issue and Nate's fix is correct, the fact that you
>> can't it hit it with mainline is just a matter of timing because it has
>> to do with the CTX pointer value (we OR it with the existing value), so
>> it may work or not dep
On 02/03/2017 03:01 AM, Nate Watterson wrote:
On 2017-02-01 13:52, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
I debugged the issue and Nate's fix is correct, the fact that you
can't it hit it with mainline is just a matter of timing because it has
to do with the CTX pointer value (we OR it with the existing valu
On 2017-02-01 13:52, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
I debugged the issue and Nate's fix is correct, the fact that you
can't it hit it with mainline is just a matter of timing because it has
to do with the CTX pointer value (we OR it with the existing value), so
it may work or not depending on how the
On 2/1/2017 1:52 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
>> Sure, send it to both Nate and me.
> I debugged the issue and Nate's fix is correct, the fact that you
> can't it hit it with mainline is just a matter of timing because it has
> to do with the CTX pointer value (we OR it with the existing value), so
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 03:03:06PM -0500, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 1/30/2017 11:51 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 10:46:39AM -0500, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> >> On 1/30/2017 9:54 AM, Nate Watterson wrote:
> >>> On 2017-01-30 09:38, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at
On 1/30/2017 11:51 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 10:46:39AM -0500, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> On 1/30/2017 9:54 AM, Nate Watterson wrote:
>>> On 2017-01-30 09:38, Will Deacon wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 09:33:50AM -0500, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 1/30/2017 9:23 AM, Nate
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 10:46:39AM -0500, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 1/30/2017 9:54 AM, Nate Watterson wrote:
> > On 2017-01-30 09:38, Will Deacon wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 09:33:50AM -0500, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> >>> On 1/30/2017 9:23 AM, Nate Watterson wrote:
> >>> > On 2017-01-30 08:59, Sinan
On 1/30/2017 9:54 AM, Nate Watterson wrote:
> On 2017-01-30 09:38, Will Deacon wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 09:33:50AM -0500, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>>> On 1/30/2017 9:23 AM, Nate Watterson wrote:
>>> > On 2017-01-30 08:59, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>>> >> On 1/30/2017 7:22 AM, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>> >>>
On 2017-01-30 09:38, Will Deacon wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 09:33:50AM -0500, Sinan Kaya wrote:
On 1/30/2017 9:23 AM, Nate Watterson wrote:
> On 2017-01-30 08:59, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> On 1/30/2017 7:22 AM, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>> On 29/01/17 17:53, Sinan Kaya wrote:
On 1/24/2017 7:37 AM
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 09:33:50AM -0500, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 1/30/2017 9:23 AM, Nate Watterson wrote:
> > On 2017-01-30 08:59, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> >> On 1/30/2017 7:22 AM, Robin Murphy wrote:
> >>> On 29/01/17 17:53, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 1/24/2017 7:37 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
>
On 1/30/2017 9:23 AM, Nate Watterson wrote:
> On 2017-01-30 08:59, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> On 1/30/2017 7:22 AM, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>> On 29/01/17 17:53, Sinan Kaya wrote:
On 1/24/2017 7:37 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> [+hanjun, tomasz, sinan]
>
> It is quite a key patchset, I wou
On 2017-01-30 08:59, Sinan Kaya wrote:
On 1/30/2017 7:22 AM, Robin Murphy wrote:
On 29/01/17 17:53, Sinan Kaya wrote:
On 1/24/2017 7:37 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
[+hanjun, tomasz, sinan]
It is quite a key patchset, I would be glad if they can test on
their
respective platforms with IORT.
On 1/30/2017 7:22 AM, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 29/01/17 17:53, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> On 1/24/2017 7:37 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
>>> [+hanjun, tomasz, sinan]
>>>
>>> It is quite a key patchset, I would be glad if they can test on their
>>> respective platforms with IORT.
>>>
>>
>> Tested on top o
On 29/01/17 17:53, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 1/24/2017 7:37 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
>> [+hanjun, tomasz, sinan]
>>
>> It is quite a key patchset, I would be glad if they can test on their
>> respective platforms with IORT.
>>
>
> Tested on top of 4.10-rc5.
>
> 1.Platform Hidma device passed
On 1/24/2017 7:37 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> [+hanjun, tomasz, sinan]
>
> It is quite a key patchset, I would be glad if they can test on their
> respective platforms with IORT.
>
Tested on top of 4.10-rc5.
1. Platform Hidma device passed dmatest
2. Seeing some USB stalls on a pla
Hi Lorenzo,
>[+hanjun, tomasz, sinan]
>
>It is quite a key patchset, I would be glad if they can test on their
>respective platforms with IORT.
>
>On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 09:48:10PM +0530, Sricharan R wrote:
>> This is an equivalent to the DT's handling of the iommu master's probe
>> with deferred
Hi Lorenzo, Sricharan,
On 01/24/2017 08:37 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
[+hanjun, tomasz, sinan]
It is quite a key patchset, I would be glad if they can test on their
respective platforms with IORT.
ACPI patches are conflict with my acpi platform msi patches (I need
them to enable devices on
[+hanjun, tomasz, sinan]
It is quite a key patchset, I would be glad if they can test on their
respective platforms with IORT.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 09:48:10PM +0530, Sricharan R wrote:
> This is an equivalent to the DT's handling of the iommu master's probe
> with deferred probing when the cor
This is an equivalent to the DT's handling of the iommu master's probe
with deferred probing when the corrsponding iommu is not probed yet.
The lack of a registered IOMMU can be caused by the lack of a driver for
the IOMMU, the IOMMU device probe not having been performed yet, having
been deferred,
19 matches
Mail list logo
