On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:50:17AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:09:06AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 07:18:42PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > >> +
> > > > >> +Multiple-master IOMMU with configurable DMA window:
> > > > >> +--
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:09:06AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 07:18:42PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> [...]
> > > >> +
> > > >> +Multiple-master IOMMU with configurable DMA window:
> > > >> +---
> > > >> +
> > > >> + /
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:23:51PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:18:08PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > It looks like this hasn't been applied yet, so I can send out a v5
> > shortly with the requested changes addressed.
>
> Yes, please send a v5 with the requested chan
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:18:08PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> It looks like this hasn't been applied yet, so I can send out a v5
> shortly with the requested changes addressed.
Yes, please send a v5 with the requested changes and all Reviewed-bys
and Acked-bys this got so far. I'll take it int
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:22:41AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> [...]
>
> > > > +Examples:
> > > > +=
> > > > +
> > > > +Single-master IOMMU:
> > > > +
> > > > +
> > > > + iommu {
> > > > + #iommu-cells = <0>;
> > > > + };
> > > > +
> > > > +
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 07:18:42PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
[...]
> > >> +
> > >> +Multiple-master IOMMU with configurable DMA window:
> > >> +---
> > >> +
> > >> + / {
> > >> + #address-cells = <1>;
> > >> + #size-cells
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:35:06AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > Hi Thierry,
> >
> > This looks sane to me.
> >
> > I just have a few questions below which are hopefully simple/stupid.
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 04:29:17PM +01
[...]
> > > +Examples:
> > > +=
> > > +
> > > +Single-master IOMMU:
> > > +
> > > +
> > > + iommu {
> > > + #iommu-cells = <0>;
> > > + };
> > > +
> > > + master {
> > > + iommus = <&/iommu>;
> >
> > Nit: this should be iommus = <&{/iommu}>, or it's not
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 04:26:47PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi Thierry,
>
> This looks sane to me.
>
> I just have a few questions below which are hopefully simple/stupid.
>
> On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 04:29:17PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > From: Thierry Reding
> >
> > This commit intro
On Wednesday 30 July 2014, Thierry Reding wrote:
se?
>
> I think there weren't any comments left for me to address and I've
> mostly been waiting for Joerg to pick it up.
>
> Joerg, can you take this through the iommu tree for 3.17? Will acked
> this, but perhaps you were waiting for an ACK from
[...]
> >> +Multiple-master IOMMU:
> >> +--
> >> +
> >> + iommu {
> >> + /* the specifier represents the ID of the master */
> >> + #iommu-cells = <1>;
> >> + };
> >> +
> >> + master@1 {
> >> + /* device has master ID 42 in the IO
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 02:23:50PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 12:04:25PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 04:29:17PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
>> > > From: Thierry Reding
>> > >
>> > > This
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 6:33 AM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 03:23:50PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
>> I think there weren't any comments left for me to address and I've
>> mostly been waiting for Joerg to pick it up.
>>
>> Joerg, can you take this through the iommu tree for 3.1
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi Thierry,
>
> This looks sane to me.
>
> I just have a few questions below which are hopefully simple/stupid.
>
> On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 04:29:17PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
>> From: Thierry Reding
>>
>> This commit introduces a ge
Hi Thierry,
This looks sane to me.
I just have a few questions below which are hopefully simple/stupid.
On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 04:29:17PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> From: Thierry Reding
>
> This commit introduces a generic device tree binding for IOMMU devices.
> Only a very minimal subse
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 02:23:50PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 12:04:25PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 04:29:17PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > From: Thierry Reding
> > >
> > > This commit introduces a generic device tree binding for IOMMU
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 03:23:50PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> I think there weren't any comments left for me to address and I've
> mostly been waiting for Joerg to pick it up.
>
> Joerg, can you take this through the iommu tree for 3.17? Will acked
> this, but perhaps you were waiting for an A
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 12:04:25PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 04:29:17PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > From: Thierry Reding
> >
> > This commit introduces a generic device tree binding for IOMMU devices.
> > Only a very minimal subset is described here, bu
Hi all,
On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 04:29:17PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> From: Thierry Reding
>
> This commit introduces a generic device tree binding for IOMMU devices.
> Only a very minimal subset is described here, but it is enough to cover
> the requirements of both the Exynos System MMU an
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Olav Haugan wrote:
> On 7/13/2014 4:43 AM, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 5:43 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 01:57:31PM +0100, Rob Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Saturday 12 July
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 02:25:20AM +0100, Olav Haugan wrote:
> On 7/13/2014 4:43 AM, Rob Clark wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 5:43 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> >> My plan for the ARM SMMU driver is:
> >>
> >> (1) Change ->probe() to walk the device-tree looking for all masters with
> >> ph
On 7/13/2014 4:43 AM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 5:43 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 01:57:31PM +0100, Rob Clark wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Saturday 12 July 2014, Rob Clark wrote:
>>> Was there actually a good re
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 2:24 AM, Thierry Reding
wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 08:57:31AM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> [...]
>> > The way that Thierry's binding does that is the obvious solution to this,
>> > and it mirrors what we do in pra
Hi Thierry,
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 07:44:53AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 10:43:41AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > My plan for the ARM SMMU driver is:
> >
> > (1) Change ->probe() to walk the device-tree looking for all masters with
> > phandles back to the SMM
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 10:43:41AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 01:57:31PM +0100, Rob Clark wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Saturday 12 July 2014, Rob Clark wrote:
> > >> >> Was there actually a good reason for having the device link
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 08:57:31AM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
[...]
> > The way that Thierry's binding does that is the obvious solution to this,
> > and it mirrors what we do in practically every other subsystem. I definitely
> > want the SMMU
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 02:22:01PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Saturday 12 July 2014, Rob Clark wrote:
> > >> Was there actually a good reason for having the device link to the
> > >> iommu rather than the other way around? How much would people hate it
> > >> if I just ignore the generic bin
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 5:43 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 01:57:31PM +0100, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> > On Saturday 12 July 2014, Rob Clark wrote:
>> >> >> Was there actually a good reason for having the device link to the
>>
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 01:57:31PM +0100, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Saturday 12 July 2014, Rob Clark wrote:
> >> >> Was there actually a good reason for having the device link to the
> >> >> iommu rather than the other way around? How much wou
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Saturday 12 July 2014, Rob Clark wrote:
>> >> Was there actually a good reason for having the device link to the
>> >> iommu rather than the other way around? How much would people hate it
>> >> if I just ignore the generic bindings and u
On Saturday 12 July 2014, Rob Clark wrote:
> >> Was there actually a good reason for having the device link to the
> >> iommu rather than the other way around? How much would people hate it
> >> if I just ignore the generic bindings and use something that works for
> >> me instead. I mean, it isn
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 5:39 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 09:55:14PM +0100, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Thierry Reding
>> wrote:
>> > From: Thierry Reding
>> ok, so I was working through this to try to convert my
>> {qcom,msm}-iommu-v0 RFC
Hi Rob,
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 09:55:14PM +0100, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Thierry Reding
> wrote:
> > From: Thierry Reding
> ok, so I was working through this to try to convert my
> {qcom,msm}-iommu-v0 RFC over to using these bindings. For background,
> I was initial
On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Thierry Reding
wrote:
> From: Thierry Reding
>
> This commit introduces a generic device tree binding for IOMMU devices.
> Only a very minimal subset is described here, but it is enough to cover
> the requirements of both the Exynos System MMU and Tegra SMMU as
>
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:57:38AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:23:34AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:49:10AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 07:10:48PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 03:21
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:23:34AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:49:10AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 07:10:48PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 03:21:27PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > > Anything beyond that (e.g. lo
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:49:10AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 07:10:48PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 03:21:27PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > Anything beyond that (e.g. logical grouping of masters) isn't directly
> > > within the scope of t
On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 07:10:48PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Thierry,
>
> On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 03:21:27PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 02:40:50PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > I would like to move the ARM SMMU driver over to this for 3.18, if
> > > possible.
Hi Thierry,
On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 03:21:27PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 02:40:50PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > I would like to move the ARM SMMU driver over to this for 3.18, if possible.
> > One use-case there is the ability to describe groups of masters behind a
>
On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 02:40:50PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 04:29:17PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > From: Thierry Reding
> >
> > This commit introduces a generic device tree binding for IOMMU devices.
> > Only a very minimal subset is described here, but it is enoug
On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 04:29:17PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> From: Thierry Reding
>
> This commit introduces a generic device tree binding for IOMMU devices.
> Only a very minimal subset is described here, but it is enough to cover
> the requirements of both the Exynos System MMU and Tegra S
From: Thierry Reding
This commit introduces a generic device tree binding for IOMMU devices.
Only a very minimal subset is described here, but it is enough to cover
the requirements of both the Exynos System MMU and Tegra SMMU as
discussed here:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/4/27/346
Signed-of
42 matches
Mail list logo
