Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v8 2/3] dt-bindings: arm-smmu: Add binding for Tegra194 SMMU | From | Robin Murphy <> | Date | Tue, 30 Jun 2020 13:27:36 +0100 |
| |
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 >
| |