On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:43 PM Will Deacon <w...@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 11:05:39AM -0800, Rob Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:10 AM Will Deacon <w...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 09:32:54AM +0530, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote: > > > > On 2020-11-24 00:52, Rob Clark wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 9:01 AM Sai Prakash Ranjan > > > > > <saiprakash.ran...@codeaurora.org> wrote: > > > > > > On 2020-11-23 20:51, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > > > > Modulo some minor comments I've made, this looks good to me. What > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > plan for merging it? I can take the IOMMU parts, but patches 4-6 > > > > > > > touch > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > MSM GPU driver and I'd like to avoid conflicts with that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SMMU bits are pretty much independent and GPU relies on the domain > > > > > > attribute > > > > > > and the quirk exposed, so as long as SMMU changes go in first it > > > > > > should > > > > > > be good. > > > > > > Rob? > > > > > > > > > > I suppose one option would be to split out the patch that adds the > > > > > attribute into it's own patch, and merge that both thru drm and iommu? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok I can split out domain attr and quirk into its own patch if Will is > > > > fine with that approach. > > > > > > Why don't I just queue the first two patches on their own branch and we > > > both pull that? > > > > Ok, that works for me. I normally base msm-next on -rc1 but I guess > > as long as we base the branch on the older or our two -next branches, > > that should work out nicely > > Turns out we're getting a v10 of Sai's stuff, so I've asked him to split > patch two up anyway. Then I'll make a branch based on -rc1 that we can > both pull.
Sounds good, thx BR, -R _______________________________________________ Freedreno mailing list Freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/freedreno
