From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julien Grall Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/13] xen/iommu: arm: Remove temporary the SMMU driver Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 13:53:27 +0000 Message-ID: <54E73C57.5060103@linaro.org> 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> 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 1YOo1k-00037d-7r for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 13:53:56 +0000 Received: by wevm14 with SMTP id m14so5669098wev.13 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 05:53:54 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1424440075.30924.245.camel@citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, tim@xen.org, stefano.stabellini@citrix.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org 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. Regards, -- Julien Grall