[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160412220715.GL1990@wotan.suse.de>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 00:07:15 +0200
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To: Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
Cc: Oded Gabbay <oded.gabbay@...il.com>,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFT v2] iommu/amd: use subsys_initcall() on amdv2 iommu
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 03:52:43PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 11.04.2016 um 15:39 schrieb Oded Gabbay:
> >On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Christian König
> ><christian.koenig@....com> wrote:
> >>Am 09.04.2016 um 02:25 schrieb Luis R. Rodriguez:
> >>>On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@...nel.org> wrote:
> >>>>We need to ensure amd iommu v2 initializes before
> >>>>driver uses such as drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_module.c,
> >>>>to do this make its init routine a subsys_initcall() which
> >>>>ensures its load init is called first than modules when
> >>>>built-in.
> >>>>
> >>>>This reverts the old work around implemented through commit
> >>>>1bacc894c227fad8a7 ("drivers: Move iommu/ before gpu/ in Makefile"),
> >>>>instead of making the dependency implicit by linker order this
> >>>>makes the ordering requirement explicit through proper kernel
> >>>>APIs.
> >>>>
> >>>>Cc: Oded Gabbay <oded.gabbay@....com>
> >>>>Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
> >>>>Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@...nel.org>
> >>
> >>Sorry for not responding earlier. Just coming back to all the stuff on my TODO list.
> >>
> >>Patch is Acked-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
> >
> >Christian,
> >Just wanted to be sure if you tested this patch-set or not.
>
> I did NOT tested it. If AMD IOMMU requires something which will now
> initialize after the IOMMU module we will obviously run into trouble
> again.
>
> I assumed that the creator of the patch did some testing.
Nope, hence [RTF] Request For Testing.
> >I don't think it should be merged without testing. If you already
> >tested it than fine. If not, I think I can do it in the next week or
> >so (just came back from PTO).
>
> Yeah, agree totally.
Agreed, please let me know if someone is able to test and confirm
this works. It should work.
Luis
Powered by blists - more mailing lists