On 20/02/15 13:47, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Fri, 2015-02-20 at 12:53 +0000, Julien Grall wrote: > The main thing I'm worried about is if the bisector is searching a range > which includes this change looking for some unrelated change and this > commit causes some sort of spurious issue or perturbation which confuses > the bisector. > > Perhaps a temporary stub could be put in which just marks SMMUs as used > by Xen but doesn't actually use them?
The changes for SMMU on the Calxeda DT never reached upstream. So at the moment, we don't have any device tree with SMMU nodes inside. So it won't impact to the bisector. Regards, -- Julien Grall _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
