Re: [GIT PULL] fixes for tidspbridge 2.6.37-rc1

[Guzman Lugo, Fernando]

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 11:04:18AM -0600, Guzman Lugo, Fernando wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 05:29:17PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> >> On Tuesday 09 November 2010, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> >> > Felipe Contreras (14):
>> >> >       Revert "staging: tidspbridge - update Kconfig to select IOMMU module"
>> >> >       Revert "staging: tidspbridge - remove dmm custom module"
>> >> >       Revert "staging: tidspbridge - deprecate reserve/unreserve_memory funtions"
>> >> >       Revert "staging: tidspbridge - remove reserved memory clean up"
>> >> >       Revert "staging: tidspbridge: remove dw_dmmu_base from cfg_hostres struct"
>> >> >       Revert "staging: tidspbridge - move all iommu related code to a new file"
>> >> >       Revert "staging: tidspbridge - remove hw directory"
>> >> >       Revert "staging: tidspbridge - fix mmufault support"
>> >> >       Revert "staging: tidspbridge - remove custom mmu code from tiomap3430.c"
>> >> >       Revert "staging: tidspbridge - rename bridge_brd_mem_map/unmap to a proper name"
>> >> >       Revert "staging: tidspbridge - move shared memory iommu maps to tiomap3430.c"
>> >> >       Revert "staging: tidspbridge: replace iommu custom for opensource implementation"
>> >>
>> >> That adds quite a lot of crap back in that was removed by Fernando earlier:
>> >>
>> >>  44 files changed, 3733 insertions(+), 847 deletions(-)
>> >>
>> >> It may have been premature to merge the patches as you say, but now that
>> >> they are in, I'd vote for giving Fernando a chance to fix up any damage
>> >> that was done in the process rather than just reverting all the useful
>> >> changes.
>> >
>> > In looking at this further, I agree.
>> >
>> > Felipe, are all of these really needing to be reverted?  How about
>> > picking out the functional changes that need to be resolved instead of
>> > just rolling back everything that has been done here.  Surely not all of
>> > these are wrong, right?
>>
>> Patches are _NOT_ wrong, missing dependencies break the bridge.
>> Without that dependencies the first patch of the set won't work and
>> all other patches have dependency on the first one, so all of them
>> need to be reverted.
>
> How about hand-reverting only the wrong patch, so the other work isn't
> lost?  I'd much prefer that.

Unfortunately any of the iommu migration patches will work correctly
without the dependencies on iommu module patches. There are some
patches which cleanup the code, but thanks to the iommu migrations the
files can disappear complete other wise I need to check and only clean
what is not needed and leave what the old custom implementation is
using, which will need a lot of rework in the patches. According with
Felipe Contreras it is very easy reverting and pushing after. I don't
like the idea of reverting all iommu patches, however looks the
easiest solution. Unless the dependencies patches can be merged the
would be the best solution.

Regards,
Fernando.

>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/