On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 07:25:26PM +0100, Rob Herring wrote: > On 04/05/2013 11:57 AM, Will Deacon wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > > > On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 05:43:06PM +0100, Rob Herring wrote: > > [...] > > >>> +- compatible : Should be one of "arm,smmu-v1" or "arm,smmu-v2" > >>> + depending on the version of the architecture > >>> + implemented. > >> > >> We can keep these, but we should have specific models like arm,smmu-400, > >> etc. as well. > > > > Ok, if distinctions need to be between MMU-400 and a v1 implementation, then > > we can add those strings later. > > No, you want to have specific values in the dtb's up front. If there is > something needed later in the kernel, you don't want to require a dtb > update then. Adding future parts later is fine, but we already know what > blocks we have.
Yes, you're right. I'll add those for v2. Cheers, Will _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
