From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/13] xen/iommu: arm: Remove temporary the SMMU driver Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 14:06:24 +0000 Message-ID: <1424441184.30924.259.camel@citrix.com> References: <1422643768-23614-1-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org> <1422643768-23614-6-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org> <1424434719.30924.198.camel@citrix.com> <54E72E3E.5040703@linaro.org> <1424440075.30924.245.camel@citrix.com> <54E73C57.5060103@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YOoE1-0004J1-Ma for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 14:06:37 +0000 In-Reply-To: <54E73C57.5060103@linaro.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Julien Grall Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, tim@xen.org, stefano.stabellini@citrix.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Fri, 2015-02-20 at 13:53 +0000, Julien Grall wrote: > On 20/02/15 13:47, Ian Campbell wrote: > > On Fri, 2015-02-20 at 12:53 +0000, Julien Grall wrote: > > The main thing I'm worried about is if the bisector is searching a range > > which includes this change looking for some unrelated change and this > > commit causes some sort of spurious issue or perturbation which confuses > > the bisector. > > > > Perhaps a temporary stub could be put in which just marks SMMUs as used > > by Xen but doesn't actually use them? > > The changes for SMMU on the Calxeda DT never reached upstream. > So at the moment, we don't have any device tree with SMMU nodes inside. > > So it won't impact to the bisector. Great, thanks. Maybe not worthy of the main changelog, but could you put it after the --- so I don't forget and ask the same thing next time please. Ian.