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. Ian. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
