Hi Will,
On Wednesday 21 January 2015 14:48:35 Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 04:56:03PM +, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Monday 19 January 2015 16:06:20 Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 08:01:56PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > On Friday 14 November 2014 19
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 04:56:03PM +, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Will,
Hi Laurent,
> Thank you for the patch.
>
> On Monday 19 January 2015 16:06:20 Will Deacon wrote:
> > (resurrecting an old thread)
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 08:01:56PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Friday 14
Hi Will,
Thank you for the patch.
On Monday 19 January 2015 16:06:20 Will Deacon wrote:
> (resurrecting an old thread)
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 08:01:56PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Friday 14 November 2014 19:27:54 Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > At the moment, iommu_ops is a structure tha
(resurrecting an old thread)
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 08:01:56PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 14 November 2014 19:27:54 Will Deacon wrote:
> > > At the moment, iommu_ops is a structure that can get used for any
> > > number of iommus of the same type, but by putting per-device private
>
Hi Will,
On Monday 15 December 2014 17:34:16 Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 05:21:16PM +, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Wednesday 19 November 2014 11:41:50 Will Deacon wrote:
> > > +static void __remove_iommu_mapping_entry(struct kref *kref)
> > > +{
> > > + struct dma_iommu_map
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 05:21:16PM +, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Will,
Hi Laurent,
> On Wednesday 19 November 2014 11:41:50 Will Deacon wrote:
> > +static void __remove_iommu_mapping_entry(struct kref *kref)
> > +{
> > + struct dma_iommu_mapping_entry *entry;
> > +
> > + entry = contain
Hi Will,
On Wednesday 19 November 2014 11:41:50 Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:21:26AM +, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> > On 2014-11-14 19:56, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > Hello everybody,
> > >
> > > Here is the fourth iteration of the RFC I've previously posted here:
> > >RFCv1
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 01:03:36PM +, jroe...@suse.de wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 05:47:07PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Joerg, would you expect this to go via your tree or via something broader
> > like arm-soc, with your Ack on the IOMMU bits (patches 1, 3 and 4) instead?
>
> Hmm, I d
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 05:47:07PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> Joerg, would you expect this to go via your tree or via something broader
> like arm-soc, with your Ack on the IOMMU bits (patches 1, 3 and 4) instead?
Hmm, I don't like the idea of storing private data in iommu_ops. But
given that thi
Hi all,
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 07:35:21AM +, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> On 2014-11-19 12:41, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:21:26AM +, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> >> On 2014-11-14 19:56, Will Deacon wrote:
> >>> Hello everybody,
> >>>
> >>> Here is the fourth iteration of
Hi Will,
On 14/11/14 18:56, Will Deacon wrote:
Hello everybody,
Here is the fourth iteration of the RFC I've previously posted here:
RFCv1:
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-August/283023.html
RFCv2:
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-Se
Hello,
On 2014-11-19 12:41, Will Deacon wrote:
Hi Marek,
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:21:26AM +, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
On 2014-11-14 19:56, Will Deacon wrote:
Hello everybody,
Here is the fourth iteration of the RFC I've previously posted here:
RFCv1:
http://lists.infradead.org/pip
Hi Marek,
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:21:26AM +, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> On 2014-11-14 19:56, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Hello everybody,
> >
> > Here is the fourth iteration of the RFC I've previously posted here:
> >
> >RFCv1:
> > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-
Hello,
On 2014-11-14 19:56, Will Deacon wrote:
Hello everybody,
Here is the fourth iteration of the RFC I've previously posted here:
RFCv1:
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-August/283023.html
RFCv2:
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-Se
On Friday 14 November 2014 19:27:54 Will Deacon wrote:
>
> > At the moment, iommu_ops is a structure that can get used for any
> > number of iommus of the same type, but by putting per-device private
> > data into the same structure you have to duplicate it per instance.
>
> I'm not sure I agree
Hi Arnd,
Thanks for having a look.
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 07:11:23PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 14 November 2014 18:56:29 Will Deacon wrote:
> >
> > Here is the fourth iteration of the RFC I've previously posted here:
> >
> > RFCv1:
> > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linu
On Friday 14 November 2014 18:56:29 Will Deacon wrote:
>
> Here is the fourth iteration of the RFC I've previously posted here:
>
> RFCv1:
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-August/283023.html
> RFCv2:
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-Se
Hello everybody,
Here is the fourth iteration of the RFC I've previously posted here:
RFCv1:
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-August/283023.html
RFCv2:
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-September/283752.html
RFCv3:
http://lists.infradead
18 matches
Mail list logo
