From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Robin Murphy Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/3] Cavium ThunderX2 SMMUv3 errata workarounds Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 18:22:43 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1496145821-3411-1-git-send-email-gakula@caviumnetworks.com> <20170608163213.GA2216@red-moon> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:55690 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751132AbdFHRWs (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jun 2017 13:22:48 -0400 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Lv Cc: Geetha sowjanya , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Will Deacon , Hanjun Guo , Sudeep Holla , "open list:AMD IOMMU (AMD-VI)" , Robert Moore , Jon Masters , Linux Kernel Mailing List , robert.richter@cavium.com, Catalin Marinas , Sunil Goutham , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , ACPI Devel Maling List , geethasowjanya.akula@gmail.com, "devel@acpica.org" , linu.cherian@cavium.com, Charles Garcia Tobin On 08/06/17 18:13, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi > wrote: >> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 05:33:38PM +0530, Geetha sowjanya wrote: >>> Cavium ThunderX2 SMMUv3 implementation has two Silicon Erratas. >>> 1. Errata ID #74 >>> SMMU register alias Page 1 is not implemented >>> 2. Errata ID #126 >>> SMMU doesnt support unique IRQ lines and also MSI for gerror, >>> eventq and cmdq-sync >>> >>> The following patchset does software workaround for these two erratas. >>> >>> This series is based on patchset. >>> https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg578443.html >> >> Yes so it is not standalone. How are we going to merge these >> ACPI IORT/ACPICA/SMMU patches - inclusive of: >> >> [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg586458.html >> >> Rafael, do ACPICA patches go upstream via the ACPI tree pull request ? > > Not as a rule. > >> To remove dependency on ACPICA changes this series needs updating >> anyway and for [1] above I think the only solution is for all the >> patches to go via the ACPI tree (if ACPICA updates go upstream with it). > > I think we may ask Lv to backport the header changes once they have > been merged into Linux. > > Lv, would that work? FWIW, I have already sent a PR for the header patch for the new model IDs to ACPICA upstream. I briefly considered the actual table update as well, but didn't find time to comprehend the code changes that appeared to be necessary for that. Robin. > > Thanks, > Rafael >