On 30/10/2020 09:45, Rahul Singh wrote:
Hello Julien,
On 30 Oct 2020, at 9:21 am, Julien Grall <jul...@xen.org> wrote:
Hi,
On 30/10/2020 08:46, Rahul Singh wrote:
Ok Yes when I ported the driver I port the command queue operation from the
previous commit where atomic operations is not used and rest all the code is
from the latest code. I will again make sure that any bug that is fixed in
Linux should be fixed in XEN also.
I would like to seek some clarifications on the code because there seem to be
conflicting information provided in this thread.
The patch (the baseline commit is provided) and the discussion with Bertrand
suggests that you took a snapshot of the code last year and adapted for Xen.
However, here you suggest that you took an hybrid approach where part of the
code is based from last year and other part is based from the latest code (I
assume v5.9).
So can you please clarify?
Cheers,
Approach I took is to first merge the code from the commit ( Jul 2, 2019
7c288a5b27934281d9ea8b5807bc727268b7001a ) the snapshot before atomic operation
is used in SMMUv3 code for command queue operations.
After that I fixed the other code( not related to command queue operations.)
from the latest code so that no bug is introduced in XEN because of using the
last year commit.
Ok. That was definitely not clear from the commit message. Please make
this clearer in the commit message.
Anway, it means we need to do a full review of the code (rather than a
light one) because of the hybrid model.
I am still a bit puzzle to why it would require almost of a restart of
the implementation in order to sync the latest code. Does it imply that
you are mostly using the old code?
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
