> Ben, what's your preference? I waited for your reaction with these > bits, i.e. they are not in tip:core/iommu yet.
Oh I though they were... discard my previous private mail about missing Ack's then :-) I'll review them more in depth hopefully tomorrow but they look good. > One variant would be what Fujita suggested: you could pull > core/iommu as a basis (it's a well-tested, problem-free tree at the > moment, with no big risky items), and then pull/apply the powerpc > specific bits from Fujita. Or we can have the patches in core/iommu and I pull the whole thing in powerpc-next. My main concern isn't which tree they go through but that they are in powerpc-next for better testing. Cheers, Ben. > A second variant would be that we could pull these bits into > core/iommu ... albeit you are right that the PowerPC tree is much > better at testing PowerPC patches. > > A third variant would be to wait with these bits until the swiotlb > bits in core/iommu hit upstream. This would increase patch latency. > > Any of these variants is good to me. What Fujita suggests seems to > be the best to me: #1 gets us the most testing and the lowest > latency - at the cost of tree dependency. We wont rebase core/iommu. > > [ We've got three good tree properties: "tree independence", > "good testing", "low patch latency", but we cannot have all > three at once, we must pick two of them ;-) ] > > Ingo _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev