From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
galak@kernel.crashing.orga
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 0/7] powerpc: use asm-generic/dma-mapping-common.h
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:09:41 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1250150981.3587.157.camel@pasglop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090813074131.GH12143@elte.hu>
> Ben, what's your preference? I waited for your reaction with these
> bits, i.e. they are not in tip:core/iommu yet.
Oh I though they were... discard my previous private mail about
missing Ack's then :-)
I'll review them more in depth hopefully tomorrow but they look good.
> One variant would be what Fujita suggested: you could pull
> core/iommu as a basis (it's a well-tested, problem-free tree at the
> moment, with no big risky items), and then pull/apply the powerpc
> specific bits from Fujita.
Or we can have the patches in core/iommu and I pull the whole thing
in powerpc-next. My main concern isn't which tree they go through but
that they are in powerpc-next for better testing.
Cheers,
Ben.
> A second variant would be that we could pull these bits into
> core/iommu ... albeit you are right that the PowerPC tree is much
> better at testing PowerPC patches.
>
> A third variant would be to wait with these bits until the swiotlb
> bits in core/iommu hit upstream. This would increase patch latency.
>
> Any of these variants is good to me. What Fujita suggests seems to
> be the best to me: #1 gets us the most testing and the lowest
> latency - at the cost of tree dependency. We wont rebase core/iommu.
>
> [ We've got three good tree properties: "tree independence",
> "good testing", "low patch latency", but we cannot have all
> three at once, we must pick two of them ;-) ]
>
> Ingo
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, galak@kernel.crashing.orga,
beckyb@kernel.crashing.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 0/7] powerpc: use asm-generic/dma-mapping-common.h
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:09:41 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1250150981.3587.157.camel@pasglop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090813074131.GH12143@elte.hu>
> Ben, what's your preference? I waited for your reaction with these
> bits, i.e. they are not in tip:core/iommu yet.
Oh I though they were... discard my previous private mail about
missing Ack's then :-)
I'll review them more in depth hopefully tomorrow but they look good.
> One variant would be what Fujita suggested: you could pull
> core/iommu as a basis (it's a well-tested, problem-free tree at the
> moment, with no big risky items), and then pull/apply the powerpc
> specific bits from Fujita.
Or we can have the patches in core/iommu and I pull the whole thing
in powerpc-next. My main concern isn't which tree they go through but
that they are in powerpc-next for better testing.
Cheers,
Ben.
> A second variant would be that we could pull these bits into
> core/iommu ... albeit you are right that the PowerPC tree is much
> better at testing PowerPC patches.
>
> A third variant would be to wait with these bits until the swiotlb
> bits in core/iommu hit upstream. This would increase patch latency.
>
> Any of these variants is good to me. What Fujita suggests seems to
> be the best to me: #1 gets us the most testing and the lowest
> latency - at the cost of tree dependency. We wont rebase core/iommu.
>
> [ We've got three good tree properties: "tree independence",
> "good testing", "low patch latency", but we cannot have all
> three at once, we must pick two of them ;-) ]
>
> Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-08-13 8:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-08-05 5:08 [PATCH -v2 0/7] powerpc: use asm-generic/dma-mapping-common.h FUJITA Tomonori
2009-08-05 5:08 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2009-08-05 5:08 ` [PATCH -v2 1/7] powerpc: remove addr_needs_map in struct dma_mapping_ops FUJITA Tomonori
2009-08-05 5:08 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2009-08-05 5:08 ` [PATCH -v2 2/7] powerpc: remove swiotlb_pci_dma_ops FUJITA Tomonori
2009-08-05 5:08 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2009-08-05 5:08 ` [PATCH -v2 3/7] add set_dma_mask hook to struct dma_map_ops FUJITA Tomonori
2009-08-05 5:08 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2009-08-05 5:08 ` [PATCH -v2 4/7] powerpc: use dma_map_ops struct FUJITA Tomonori
2009-08-05 5:08 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2009-08-05 5:08 ` [PATCH -v2 5/7] powerpc: use asm-generic/dma-mapping-common.h FUJITA Tomonori
2009-08-05 5:08 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2009-08-05 5:08 ` [PATCH -v2 6/7] powerpc: handle SWIOTLB mapping error properly FUJITA Tomonori
2009-08-05 5:08 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2009-08-05 5:08 ` [PATCH -v2 7/7] powerpc: add CONFIG_DMA_API_DEBUG support FUJITA Tomonori
2009-08-05 5:08 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2009-08-13 5:48 ` [PATCH -v2 0/7] powerpc: use asm-generic/dma-mapping-common.h Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-08-13 5:48 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-08-13 6:51 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-08-13 6:51 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-08-13 7:11 ` Takashi Iwai
2009-08-13 7:11 ` Takashi Iwai
2009-08-13 8:07 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-08-13 8:07 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-08-13 8:11 ` Takashi Iwai
2009-08-13 8:11 ` Takashi Iwai
2009-08-13 7:07 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2009-08-13 7:07 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2009-08-13 7:41 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-08-13 7:41 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-08-13 8:09 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt [this message]
2009-08-13 8:09 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-08-13 8:55 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-08-13 8:55 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-08-13 10:38 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-08-13 10:38 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-08-13 13:31 ` Kumar Gala
2009-08-13 13:31 ` Kumar Gala
2009-08-27 3:12 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-08-27 3:12 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-08-27 3:17 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-08-27 3:17 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-08-27 7:22 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-08-27 7:22 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-08-27 7:36 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-08-27 7:36 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1250150981.3587.157.camel@pasglop \
--to=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp \
--cc=galak@kernel.crashing.orga \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.