From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joerg Roedel Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] ARM: iommu: tegra: Add initial Tegra IOMMU driver Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:43:54 +0100 Message-ID: <20111118104354.GA19737@8bytes.org> References: <1321527667-12923-1-git-send-email-hdoyu@nvidia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-tegra-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: KyongHo Cho Cc: hdoyu-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, iommu-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 07:19:53PM +0900, KyongHo Cho wrote: > I found that those patches are not IOMMU API implementations. > I wonder why they need to be located in drivers/iommu? The current effort goes into creating a generic framework for IOMMUs. These patches create their own framework which is totally the wrong direction, they even implement their own version of an IOMMU-API. I object against merging them until they are converted to the generic IOMMU-API. Joerg From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: joro@8bytes.org (Joerg Roedel) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:43:54 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 0/3] ARM: iommu: tegra: Add initial Tegra IOMMU driver In-Reply-To: References: <1321527667-12923-1-git-send-email-hdoyu@nvidia.com> Message-ID: <20111118104354.GA19737@8bytes.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 07:19:53PM +0900, KyongHo Cho wrote: > I found that those patches are not IOMMU API implementations. > I wonder why they need to be located in drivers/iommu? The current effort goes into creating a generic framework for IOMMUs. These patches create their own framework which is totally the wrong direction, they even implement their own version of an IOMMU-API. I object against merging them until they are converted to the generic IOMMU-API. Joerg From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753208Ab1KRKoB (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Nov 2011 05:44:01 -0500 Received: from 8bytes.org ([88.198.83.132]:56845 "EHLO 8bytes.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752298Ab1KRKoA (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Nov 2011 05:44:00 -0500 Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:43:54 +0100 From: Joerg Roedel To: KyongHo Cho Cc: hdoyu@nvidia.com, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] ARM: iommu: tegra: Add initial Tegra IOMMU driver Message-ID: <20111118104354.GA19737@8bytes.org> References: <1321527667-12923-1-git-send-email-hdoyu@nvidia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 07:19:53PM +0900, KyongHo Cho wrote: > I found that those patches are not IOMMU API implementations. > I wonder why they need to be located in drivers/iommu? The current effort goes into creating a generic framework for IOMMUs. These patches create their own framework which is totally the wrong direction, they even implement their own version of an IOMMU-API. I object against merging them until they are converted to the generic IOMMU-API. Joerg