On 20/02/15 14:06, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Fri, 2015-02-20 at 13:53 +0000, Julien Grall wrote: >> 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. > > Great, thanks. > > Maybe not worthy of the main changelog, but could you put it after the > --- so I don't forget and ask the same thing next time please.
Will do. Regards, -- Julien Grall _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
