Hi Eric,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2024 8:42 AM
> To: Shameerali Kolothum Thodi
> <[email protected]>; [email protected];
> [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; Linuxarm <[email protected]>; Wangzhou (B)
> <[email protected]>; jiangkunkun <[email protected]>;
> Jonathan Cameron <[email protected]>;
> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/5] hw/arm/smmuv3: Add initial support for
> SMMUv3 Nested device
> >> why did you choose not using the PLATFORM BUS infra which does that
> >> kind of binding automatically (also it provisions for dedicated MMIOs
> and
> >> IRQs). At least you would need to justify in the commit msg I think
> > Because I was not sure how to do this binding otherwise. I couldn't find
> > any such precedence for a dynamic platform bus dev binding
> > MMIOs/IRQs(May be I didn't look hard). I mentioned it in cover letter.
> >
> > Could you please give me some pointers/example for this? I will also
> > take another look.
> vfio platform users such automatic binding (however you must check that
> vfio platform bus mmio and irq space is large enough for your needs).
>
> the binding is transparently handled by
> if (vms->platform_bus_dev) {
> if (device_is_dynamic_sysbus(mc, dev)) {
>
> platform_bus_link_device(PLATFORM_BUS_DEVICE(vms-
> >platform_bus_dev),
> SYS_BUS_DEVICE(dev));
> }
> }
Ah..I see. I missed that it does that transparently. And use
platform_bus_get_mmio_addr() for retrieving it for ACPI/DT similar to what TPM
device is doing.
So we don't need specific entries for this device in memmap/irqmap.
I will give it a try.
Thanks,
Shameer.
