From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85AA1C433B4 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 05:44:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5C386128E for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 05:44:58 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org B5C386128E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FKF1N6h5rz3c0R for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 15:44:56 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20161025 header.b=QfN4WH1G; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com (client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::82a; helo=mail-qt1-x82a.google.com; envelope-from=leobras.c@gmail.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20161025 header.b=QfN4WH1G; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mail-qt1-x82a.google.com (mail-qt1-x82a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82a]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FKF0t5cp1z3027 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 15:44:28 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-qt1-x82a.google.com with SMTP id g24so11874516qts.6 for ; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 22:44:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :organization:user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Nz5tyiIHGH708W0D/VPaU8LsCV5BwCSqIoItkqU8xYc=; b=QfN4WH1GKnHHrg3HhXWmEGwRmW6MqQ1UGQcxr0sMQmG6wAb/1N7J0Ti5+te1TKsMvA 6SgbonRlGyVOLYZ3nSglDMcMTm9G1kqXD4Hp3qIhdwIYEDO91bS1QJCe184Z9kP5qy/S S0KIBhLvXq3XHWfFa1VjRms9N9PCtvfIR4oexjx/ctsNhkgsBCVklp1Wf9oG4tiLwzoM LyVcJSxrKaKE7a4FDFDDwZXRvw6TAjl3cN+QDPi4UKSQssZjJLALQ4qIINQFym/cf0lx XFKIJrcBMwmsnkx0qPqiNrmo/myG3oepDG4tM+XiojcA2BUJ5YOb93BbB/wKa1Nz3hSp GIxg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:organization:user-agent:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Nz5tyiIHGH708W0D/VPaU8LsCV5BwCSqIoItkqU8xYc=; b=cHk3YG8XiYgGipAIBuSBaQTjwz6K/LxOa84VBw3jTeh/wzrQ1hOM6XWPv8idCv9eCj sBWSlugdFYVnMpVJSxPjf98CHwlQQi2zsqGr8xs60WdkPiyyV8pnPoYpdosmAD9cy1uC gw6DJtI6eB9GDe1s8HLUBMzRK35dYJe1Bvvh5vYc4eLsl/MLozgKdeQrpDOB6FkBCeu5 bXvMHnN5Ek+gIhqXon6A566hax6ZfDGcwuITwASYIhcFqRx0ePbFN4p7A3/tALA9SS4G tp34bt5LoG9PyUmMq1TbDlfm79bSalmqFLh5unxisgwpp8qOGCPbg76F/X4y2HT+/g8P sXRA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533afCLItCbZhSGdbrLjb+M/vRzWzzBTJb5WeSV+yonggIgDbGMy 64cPLhLMwzkn/OdA3rZ3I7w= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxQafmCqY6h0kKpMiSqmd80+4ut1EjZ/F8NYskVxt56Wn/Z6zhxWeW6BtmBoGNZQ/oIU7i6sA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:c:: with SMTP id x12mr17525117qtw.95.1618292664205; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 22:44:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from li-908e0a4c-2250-11b2-a85c-f027e903211b.ibm.com ([2804:14c:482:7b04::1000]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u126sm6064032qkd.80.2021.04.12.22.44.20 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 12 Apr 2021 22:44:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <529fcd73cbfaba31aa4428a0e44a65f83767ff14.camel@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/14] powerpc/pseries/iommu: Update remove_dma_window() to accept property name From: Leonardo Bras To: Alexey Kardashevskiy , Michael Ellerman , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Joel Stanley , Christophe Leroy , Thiago Jung Bauermann , Ram Pai , Brian King , Murilo Fossa Vicentini , David Dai Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 02:44:19 -0300 In-Reply-To: <5b26b874-6f7a-ce1f-fe33-d6861f7ffb4b@ozlabs.ru> References: <20200911170738.82818-1-leobras.c@gmail.com> <20200911170738.82818-12-leobras.c@gmail.com> <5b26b874-6f7a-ce1f-fe33-d6861f7ffb4b@ozlabs.ru> Organization: IBM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.4 (3.38.4-1.fc33) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Tue, 2020-09-29 at 13:56 +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > > On 12/09/2020 03:07, Leonardo Bras wrote: > > Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, > > > > Update remove_dma_window() so it can be used to remove DDW with a given > > property name. > > > > Out of context this seems useless. How about? > === > At the moment pseries stores information about created directly mapped > DDW window in DIRECT64_PROPNAME. We are going to implement indirect DDW > window which we need to preserve during kexec so we need another > property for that. > === > > Feel free to correct my english :) Thanks Alexey! It helped a lot me better describing the reasoning before the change! > > > >    ret = of_remove_property(np, win); > >    if (ret) > >    pr_warn("%pOF: failed to remove direct window property: %d\n", > >    np, ret); > > + return 0; > > > You do not test the return code anywhere until 13/14 so I'd say merge > this one into 13/14, the same comment applies to 12/14. If you do not > move chunks in 13/14, it is going to be fairly small patch. I have applied most suggested changes for patches 11,12,13, but on a single diff it still amounts to 275 lines.  To be honest, after 7 months of sending this patchset (and working on other stuff), patch 13 looks a lot like to read alone, and merging with 11 & 12 seems to be too much. Would it be ok to apply the changes and leave them all separated, or as a mid ground just merging 11 & 12 together? Adding your suggested text above should be enough to get enough context for them. I could also say why the return code is left unused for now. Best regards, Leonardo Bras