[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAA8EJpoGpA4AoUvnf_Nby5e0u1hGjMgyDuv4TVkejZyidBp=Jw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2024 16:39:00 +0200
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To: Bibek Kumar Patro <quic_bibekkum@...cinc.com>
Cc: robdclark@...il.com, will@...nel.org, robin.murphy@....com,
joro@...tes.org, jgg@...pe.ca, jsnitsel@...hat.com, robh@...nel.org,
krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org, quic_c_gdjako@...cinc.com,
iommu@...ts.linux.dev, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v17 0/5] iommu/arm-smmu: introduction of ACTLR
implementation for Qualcomm SoCs
On Mon, 18 Nov 2024 at 14:12, Bibek Kumar Patro
<quic_bibekkum@...cinc.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/15/2024 10:43 PM, Bibek Kumar Patro wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 11/15/2024 4:26 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 09:37:16PM +0530, Bibek Kumar Patro wrote:
> >>> This patch series consist of six parts and covers the following:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Provide option to re-enable context caching to retain prefetcher
> >>> settings during reset and runtime suspend.
> >>>
> >>> 2. Remove cfg inside qcom_smmu structure and replace it with single
> >>> pointer to qcom_smmu_match_data avoiding replication of multiple
> >>> members from same.
> >>>
> >>> 3. Add support for ACTLR PRR bit setup via adreno-smmu-priv interface.
> >>>
> >>> 4. Introduce intital set of driver changes to implement ACTLR register
> >>> for custom prefetcher settings in Qualcomm SoCs.
> >>>
> >>> 5. Add ACTLR data and support for qcom_smmu_500.
> >>>
> >>> Resend of v17:
> >>> Addition of minor fix of the build warning reported by kernel test
> >>> robot [1] by powerpc_random config [2].
> >>> [1]:https://lore.kernel.org/all/202411140748.6mcFdJdO-lkp@intel.com/#t
> >>> [2]:https://download.01.org/0day-ci/
> >>> archive/20241114/202411140748.6mcFdJdO-lkp@...el.com/config
> >>
> >> Nit: then it's not a resend, but a new iteration. RESEND literally means
> >> resending the same patchset.
> >
> > I see. Since it is a simple "int i" and so did not feel worth a new
> > iteration.
> >
> > Thanks & regards,
> > Bibek
> >
>
> Let me know if you still feel this should be a new patch, I will send
> the new iteration then in that case or I'll wait till further reviews on
> this series.
I think it should be fine like it is now. Thus I marked the comment as
"nit", "not important thing"
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists