Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 0/2] ARM: ACPI: IORT: Hide SMMU from hardware domain's IORT table

On 10/12/2017 5:14 PM, Julien Grall wrote: On 12/10/17 12:22, Manish Jaggi wrote: Hi Julien, Why do you omit parts of mail where I have asked a question , please avoid skiping that removes the context. I believe I answered it just after because you asked twice the same thing. So may I

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 0/2] ARM: ACPI: IORT: Hide SMMU from hardware domain's IORT table

On 12/10/17 12:22, Manish Jaggi wrote: Hi Julien, Why do you omit parts of mail where I have asked a question , please avoid skiping  that removes the context. I believe I answered it just after because you asked twice the same thing. So may I dropped the context but the answer was

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 0/2] ARM: ACPI: IORT: Hide SMMU from hardware domain's IORT table

Hi Julien, Why do you omit parts of mail where I have asked a question , please avoid skiping that removes the context. I raised a valid point and it was totally ignored and you asked me to explain the rationale on a later point. So if you choose to ignore my first point, how can I put any

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 0/2] ARM: ACPI: IORT: Hide SMMU from hardware domain's IORT table

Hello, On 12/10/17 07:11, Manish Jaggi wrote: On 10/6/2017 7:54 PM, Julien Grall wrote: I am not asking to write the DomU support, but at least have a full separation between the Parsing and Generation. So we could easily adapt and re-use the code when we get the DomU support. I got your

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 0/2] ARM: ACPI: IORT: Hide SMMU from hardware domain's IORT table

On 10/6/2017 7:54 PM, Julien Grall wrote: Hello, On 04/10/17 06:22, Manish Jaggi wrote: On 10/4/2017 12:12 AM, Julien Grall wrote: On 25/09/17 05:22, Manish Jaggi wrote: On 9/22/2017 7:42 PM, Andre Przywara wrote: Hi Manish, On 11/09/17 22:33, mja...@caviumnetworks.com wrote: From:

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 0/2] ARM: ACPI: IORT: Hide SMMU from hardware domain's IORT table

Hello, On 04/10/17 06:22, Manish Jaggi wrote: On 10/4/2017 12:12 AM, Julien Grall wrote: On 25/09/17 05:22, Manish Jaggi wrote: On 9/22/2017 7:42 PM, Andre Przywara wrote: Hi Manish, On 11/09/17 22:33, mja...@caviumnetworks.com wrote: From: Manish Jaggi The set is

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 0/2] ARM: ACPI: IORT: Hide SMMU from hardware domain's IORT table

Hello Julien, On 10/4/2017 12:12 AM, Julien Grall wrote: Hello, On 25/09/17 05:22, Manish Jaggi wrote: On 9/22/2017 7:42 PM, Andre Przywara wrote: Hi Manish, On 11/09/17 22:33, mja...@caviumnetworks.com wrote: From: Manish Jaggi The set is divided into two patches.

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 0/2] ARM: ACPI: IORT: Hide SMMU from hardware domain's IORT table

Hello, On 25/09/17 05:22, Manish Jaggi wrote: On 9/22/2017 7:42 PM, Andre Przywara wrote: Hi Manish, On 11/09/17 22:33, mja...@caviumnetworks.com wrote: From: Manish Jaggi The set is divided into two patches. First one calculates the size of IORT while second one

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 0/2] ARM: ACPI: IORT: Hide SMMU from hardware domain's IORT table

Hi Andre, On 9/22/2017 7:42 PM, Andre Przywara wrote: Hi Manish, On 11/09/17 22:33, mja...@caviumnetworks.com wrote: From: Manish Jaggi The set is divided into two patches. First one calculates the size of IORT while second one writes the IORT table itself. It would be

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 0/2] ARM: ACPI: IORT: Hide SMMU from hardware domain's IORT table

Hi Manish, On 11/09/17 22:33, mja...@caviumnetworks.com wrote: > From: Manish Jaggi > > The set is divided into two patches. First one calculates the size of IORT > while second one writes the IORT table itself. It would be good if you could give a quick introduction *why*