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 <vdu...@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
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
