From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.8bytes.org (mail.8bytes.org [85.214.250.239]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DFD233D9 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 13:11:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from 8bytes.org (p200300c27714bc0086ad4f9d2505dd0d.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [IPv6:2003:c2:7714:bc00:86ad:4f9d:2505:dd0d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail.8bytes.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9473F243A8A; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 15:11:27 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=8bytes.org; s=default; t=1680009087; bh=13IoeeKBxX5OphHp1aBskczjEEJjaf6OphClbTl0qEM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=kJ/0hol8mFQYexq6WrOXJ5SIL0aWzORVumsRQ8uO3umtxUd1ksihzgAkl6iw2ehP6 Vte+ZXHAs8BdhFTzKTZzkXZJoahQx2hfUCauGOIk6L09Ua1HH5h1o2xHp4+u2tgKMe eBWtBIpsuJn2S+sW0D5gVODVlzl+prBXX+umGJqR9p6/bY8N7gTu7A9tjS4iPMsKpG NZGyx9pi4KXPiJMcM26Z3s7+AD/jLBeViGc0GV37mXBUMTtLsnVzNKR+5GAo2mJtUW CgHKcqZTUl13J4EJIGeGkImMMvrgisrN1bHrVCX2N9D6E9XozC3xQOxAs9uYp8dGlk 5m1Qlem2jQ0wg== Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 15:11:26 +0200 From: Joerg Roedel To: Marek Szyprowski Cc: Jason Gunthorpe , iommu@lists.linux.dev, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, Will Deacon , Robin Murphy , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Alim Akhtar , Lu Baolu Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] iommu/exynos: Fix set_platform_dma_ops() callback Message-ID: References: <20230315232514.1046589-1-m.szyprowski@samsung.com> <3ca0c680-d651-a2af-978e-fcb4a2057dd0@samsung.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: iommu@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3ca0c680-d651-a2af-978e-fcb4a2057dd0@samsung.com> On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 09:59:27PM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote: > Frankly speaking I would like to have a minimal fix (like my $subject > patch) applied to v6.3-rcX ASAP and then apply this identity domain > support on top of than for -next (6.4). I've checked and your proposed > patch works fine in my case, so You can send it as formal patch. > > Joerg: is that okay for you? Agreed, a minimal fix for 6.3 would be great. Regards, Joerg