[PATCHv8 0/8] System Cache support for GPU and required SMMU support

[Rob Clark]

On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:43 PM Will Deacon <will at kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 11:05:39AM -0800, Rob Clark wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:10 AM Will Deacon <will at kernel.org> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 09:32:54AM +0530, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
> > > > On 2020-11-24 00:52, Rob Clark wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 9:01 AM Sai Prakash Ranjan
> > > > > <saiprakash.ranjan at codeaurora.org> wrote:
> > > > > > On 2020-11-23 20:51, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > > > > Modulo some minor comments I've made, this looks good to me. What is
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > plan for merging it? I can take the IOMMU parts, but patches 4-6 touch
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > MSM GPU driver and I'd like to avoid conflicts with that.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > SMMU bits are pretty much independent and GPU relies on the domain
> > > > > > attribute
> > > > > > and the quirk exposed, so as long as SMMU changes go in first it
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > be good.
> > > > > > Rob?
> > > > >
> > > > > I suppose one option would be to split out the patch that adds the
> > > > > attribute into it's own patch, and merge that both thru drm and iommu?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ok I can split out domain attr and quirk into its own patch if Will is
> > > > fine with that approach.
> > >
> > > Why don't I just queue the first two patches on their own branch and we
> > > both pull that?
> >
> > Ok, that works for me.  I normally base msm-next on -rc1 but I guess
> > as long as we base the branch on the older or our two -next branches,
> > that should work out nicely
>
> Turns out we're getting a v10 of Sai's stuff, so I've asked him to split
> patch two up anyway. Then I'll make a branch based on -rc1 that we can
> both pull.

Sounds good, thx

BR,
-R