From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:56404 "EHLO newverein.lst.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1732713AbeHFRhu (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 6 Aug 2018 13:37:50 -0400
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 17:33:26 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Wesley Terpstra <wesley@sifive.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] PCI/xilinx: Work-around for hardware DMA limit (32
        bits)
Message-ID: <20180806153326.GA17328@lst.de>
References: <20180804101402.10022-1-hch@lst.de> <20180804101402.10022-3-hch@lst.de> <CAMgXwTgr572J_HH396tfvT7Zj8Jj0fefKOSmVw2+Gwn8qcPR1g@mail.gmail.com> <20180806123527.GB6997@lst.de> <20180806134043.GD18685@e107981-ln.cambridge.arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <20180806134043.GD18685@e107981-ln.cambridge.arm.com>
Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-pci.vger.kernel.org>

On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 02:40:43PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> It would do the right thing without patches 1 and 2 (I would
> consider merging patch 1 anyway - see pcibios_add_device()
> removal).
> 
> It seems to me that the best course of action consists in patching
> firmware, that would remove the need for patch 2 (I will merge patch
> 1 anyway - even if that's for a "different" purpose, see
> pcibios_add_device() removal), please let us know.

Sounds good to me.  Patch 1 also doesn't even depend on dma-mapping
bits so feel free to pull it in when you think is the best time.

From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: hch@lst.de (Christoph Hellwig)
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 17:33:26 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 2/3] PCI/xilinx: Work-around for hardware DMA limit (32
 bits)
In-Reply-To: <20180806134043.GD18685@e107981-ln.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <20180804101402.10022-1-hch@lst.de>
 <20180804101402.10022-3-hch@lst.de>
 <CAMgXwTgr572J_HH396tfvT7Zj8Jj0fefKOSmVw2+Gwn8qcPR1g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180806123527.GB6997@lst.de>
 <20180806134043.GD18685@e107981-ln.cambridge.arm.com>
Message-ID: <20180806153326.GA17328@lst.de>
To: linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-riscv.lists.infradead.org

On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 02:40:43PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> It would do the right thing without patches 1 and 2 (I would
> consider merging patch 1 anyway - see pcibios_add_device()
> removal).
> 
> It seems to me that the best course of action consists in patching
> firmware, that would remove the need for patch 2 (I will merge patch
> 1 anyway - even if that's for a "different" purpose, see
> pcibios_add_device() removal), please let us know.

Sounds good to me.  Patch 1 also doesn't even depend on dma-mapping
bits so feel free to pull it in when you think is the best time.