On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 08:41:34PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 19:27:26 +0100 > Will Deacon <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 07:09:32PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > > > Catalin, Will: assuming you don't have any objection to this series, > > > > how do you want to deal with patch 2? > > > > What are the actual dependencies here? AFAICT, the series is addressing > > multiple errata, so would it be possible to make the arm64 bits somewhat > > independent from the gic parts? > > Patch 2 could be split into an arm64-specific part and a gic part, with > a bit of #ifdef-ery in gicv3_enable_quirks().
The arm64 part without CONFIG_CAVIUM_ERRATUM_* wouldn't cause any problem. Anyway, I'm not too bothered about separate patches, I think the whole series could go in via a single tree (irqchip). > > Also, I assume this is targetting 4.4? > > Up to you, really. It is not a regression, but it would still be nice > to have 4.3 working reliably on this HW. I don't have any objection to this patchset but it looks like quite a lot of code for 4.3 and it is not a regression. Anyway, for the arch/arm64 bits: Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <[email protected]> -- Catalin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
