Re: [PATCH 5/6] ARM: OMAP2+: Make some definitions local

[Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>]

Ho Tony,

On Friday 19 October 2012 09:17:43 Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> [121019 02:45]:
> > On Thursday 18 October 2012 13:28:48 Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > @@ -117,13 +112,6 @@ static inline struct omap_iommu
> > > *dev_to_omap_iommu(struct device *dev) }
> > > 
> > >  #endif
> > > 
> > > -/* IOMMU errors */
> > > -#define OMAP_IOMMU_ERR_TLB_MISS		(1 << 0)
> > > -#define OMAP_IOMMU_ERR_TRANS_FAULT	(1 << 1)
> > > -#define OMAP_IOMMU_ERR_EMU_MISS		(1 << 2)
> > > -#define OMAP_IOMMU_ERR_TBLWALK_FAULT	(1 << 3)
> > > -#define OMAP_IOMMU_ERR_MULTIHIT_FAULT	(1 << 4)
> > > -
> > 
> > I'll use those in the tidspbridge driver, in patches that I plan to push
> > soon.
> > 
> > I will apply this patch set on top of mine, see what breaks. Would you
> > like me to propose a modified version of this set, or add additional
> > patches in my set ?
> 
> Sure, let's try to expose only the minimal amount of omap iommu things with
> this patch set so we don't break things. Then the iommu development can
> continue on it's own independent of the core omap code except for the
> platform data.

I'll rebase my DSP patches on top of this patch set then, it will be easier.

> But again, if there are nasty layering violations using this code, I would
> just remove those features. Those things tend to just get worse unless they
> are fixed properly to start with.

The long-term goal is to move the tidspbridge driver to the IOMMU API, but 
we'll need a step by step approach.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart