From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 17:06:40 +0000
Subject: [PATCH v7 04/16] drivers: iommu: make of_iommu_set/get_ops() DT
 agnostic
In-Reply-To: <20161129160549.GH2078@8bytes.org>
References: <20161111152248.GS2078@8bytes.org>
 <552e674a-f434-f08f-8e16-a94544ce8e6e@arm.com>
 <20161111162736.GV2078@8bytes.org>
 <33769e3c-265f-6e89-adf9-6d35b1e03579@arm.com>
 <20161114102654.GA1677@red-moon>
 <41e3eff1-9ce6-bcfb-5716-c65ef38add63@arm.com>
 <20161114155222.GZ2078@8bytes.org>
 <313844ca-d948-1297-84b2-669f3a7d57d2@arm.com>
 <20161116095615.GA25656@red-moon>
 <20161129160549.GH2078@8bytes.org>
Message-ID: <20161129170639.GH30283@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 05:05:49PM +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 09:56:15AM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > I can easily make the changes Robin suggests above, I need to know
> > what to do with this patch it is the last blocking point for this
> > series and time is running out I can revert to using dev->bus to
> > retrieve iommu_ops (even though I do not think it makes sense given
> > what Robin outlines below) but I need to know please, we can't gate
> > an entire series for this patch that is just syntactic sugar.
> 
> Well, I didn't really object to the approach per-se, I just wanted to
> know the rationale behind the need for the iommu-ops pointer. So through
> which tree should this series be merged?

I was just about to send a pull request to you, since it conflicts with
my ARM SMMU patches and the PCI/ACPI bits are acked by Rafael and Bjorn.

My for-joerg/arm-smmu/updates is ready to go; just need to write the
pull request.

Will