linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/7] dt-bindings: iommu: qcom,iommu: Document qcom,ctx-num property

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b01091e0-993e-5dbb-ad69-c80d253fef76@collabora.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 Nov 2022 11:54:38 +0100
From:   AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        agross@...nel.org
Cc:     andersson@...nel.org, konrad.dybcio@...aro.org, joro@...tes.org,
        will@...nel.org, robin.murphy@....com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, robdclark@...il.com,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        marijn.suijten@...ainline.org, kernel@...labora.com,
        luca@...tu.xyz, a39.skl@...il.com, phone-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        ~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] dt-bindings: iommu: qcom,iommu: Document qcom,ctx-num
 property

Il 14/11/22 09:23, Krzysztof Kozlowski ha scritto:
> On 11/11/2022 14:55, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
>> Add a new "qcom,ctx-num" property to force an ASID number on IOMMU
>> contexts where required.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>
>> ---
>>   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/qcom,iommu.txt | 1 +
> 
> This is already a v2:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220527212901.29268-1-konrad.dybcio@somainline.org/
> 
> and your v2 was a v3...
> 

I honestly didn't remember that this got sent again 5 months ago... besides,
I have to send a new version anyway because of a code fix, should I name it v3?

Regards,
Angelo