lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/1] iommu/arm-smmu: Add support for qcom,smmu-500 variant
On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 12:32 AM, Vivek Gautam
<vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> Qualcomm's arm-smmu 500 implementation supports runtime pm
> so enable the same.

That's a driver detail unrelated to the binding.

>
> Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org>
> ---
>
> Based on iommu/arm-smmu pm runtime support series [1]:
> [PATCH v8 0/5] iommu/arm-smmu: Add runtime pm/sleep support
>
> Tested on sdm845 with necessary support to enable the smmu
> and with necessary user.
>
> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/2/325
>
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.txt | 14 ++++++++++++++

Please split bindings to separate patches.

> drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c | 8 ++++++++
> 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.txt
> index 6ea27bd4f785..0b5c6d2a9865 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.txt
> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ conditions.
> "arm,mmu-500"
> "cavium,smmu-v2"
> "qcom,<soc>-smmu-v2", "qcom,smmu-v2"

I don't even see this one in the tree yet...

> + "qcom,<soc>-smmu-500", "qcom,smmu-500"

IIRC, the mmu-500 is SMMU v2 implementation, right? Having
qcom,smmu-500 seems kind of pointless.

Given that we're there's only 1 SoC for "qcom,<soc>-smmu-v2" and
you're already on to a new genericish compatible, just do SoC specific
compatible strings.

Rob

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-07 17:30    [W:0.025 / U:1.680 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site