lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jun]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v8 2/3] dt-bindings: arm-smmu: Add binding for Tegra194 SMMU
From
Date
On 2020-06-30 01:10, Krishna Reddy wrote:
> Add binding for NVIDIA's Tegra194 SoC SMMU topology that is based
> on ARM MMU-500.
>
> Signed-off-by: Krishna Reddy <vdumpa@nvidia.com>
> ---
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml
> index d7ceb4c34423b..5b2586ac715ed 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml
> @@ -38,6 +38,11 @@ properties:
> - qcom,sc7180-smmu-500
> - qcom,sdm845-smmu-500
> - const: arm,mmu-500
> + - description: NVIDIA SoCs that use more than one "arm,mmu-500"

Hmm, there must be a better way to word that to express that it only
applies to the sets of SMMUs that must be programmed identically, and
not any other independent MMU-500s that might also happen to be in the
same SoC.

> + items:
> + - enum:
> + - nvdia,tegra194-smmu
> + - const: arm,mmu-500

Is the fallback compatible appropriate here? If software treats this as
a standard MMU-500 it will only program the first instance (because the
second isn't presented as a separate MMU-500) - is there any way that
isn't going to blow up?

Robin.

> - items:
> - const: arm,mmu-500
> - const: arm,smmu-v2
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-06-30 14:28    [W:0.469 / U:3.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site