[PATCH v2 00/10] arm64: tegra: Prevent early SMMU faults

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 02/06/2021 16:53, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 12:44:58PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 02/06/2021 10:52, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 09:35:13AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 02/06/2021 09:33, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 01/06/2021 20:08, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 01:26:46PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 07:05:28PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 07:26:09PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>>>>>>>> From: Thierry Reding <treding at nvidia.com>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Probably best if I queue 3-6 on a separate branch once you send a v3,
>>>>>>> then Krzysztof can pull that in if he needs it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Patch 5 has a build-time dependency on patch 1, so they need to go in
>>>>>> together. The reason why I suggested Krzysztof pick these up is because
>>>>>> there is a restructuring series that this depends on, which will go into
>>>>>> Krzysztof's tree. So in order to pull in 3-6, you'd get a bunch of other
>>>>>> and mostly unrelated stuff as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> I missed that part... what other series are needed for this one? Except
>>>>> Dmitry's power management set I do not have anything in my sight for
>>>>> Tegras memory controllers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, I can take the memory bits and provide a stable tag with these.
>>>>> Recently there was quite a lot work around Tegra memory controllers, so
>>>>> this makes especially sense if new patches appear.
>>>>
>>>> OK, I think I have now the patchset you talked about - "memory: tegra:
>>>> Driver unification" v2, right?
>>>
>>> Yes, that's the one. That series is fairly self-contained, but Dmitry's
>>> power management set has dependencies that pull in the regulator, clock
>>> and ARM SoC trees.
>>>
>>> I did a test merge of the driver unification series with a branch that
>>> has Dmitry's patches and all the dependencies and there are no conflicts
>>> so that, fortunately, doesn't further complicates things.
>>>
>>> Do you want me to send you a pull request with Dmitry's memory
>>> controller changes? You could then apply the unification series on top,
>>> which should allow this SMMU series to apply cleanly on top of that.
>>
>> Makes sense and it looks quite bulletproof for future changes. Let's do
>> like this. I will apply your patch 1/10 from this v2 on top of it and
>> driver unification later.
> 
> The SMMU series here depends on the unification series, so the
> unification series needs to go first. It'd be a fair bit of work to
> reverse that because the ->probe_device() callback implemented by the
> first patch of this SMMU series is part of the tegra_mc_ops structure
> that's introduced in the unification series.

Right, you already wrote it in the first email in this thread, I just
reversed words in my head... Then as you wrote - take Dmitry's changes
and share them via pull to me. I'll put on top the unification series,
then #1 from this SMMU series and finally I'll provide a pull request
for Will so his SMMU can go on.

Best regards,
Krzysztof