From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 15:30:37 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v4] devicetree: Add generic IOMMU device tree bindings In-Reply-To: <20140730132348.GM29590@ulmo> References: <1404487757-18829-1-git-send-email-thierry.reding@gmail.com> <20140730110425.GI12239@arm.com> <20140730132348.GM29590@ulmo> Message-ID: <20140730143037.GD8989@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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 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-off-by: Thierry Reding > > > --- > > > Changes in v4: > > > - clarify that disabling an IOMMU DT node may not disable translation > > > - be more explicit that examples are only examples > > > - add multi-ID master example > > > > > > Changes in v3: > > > - use #iommu-cells instead of #address-cells/#size-cells > > > - drop optional iommu-names property > > > > > > Changes in v2: > > > - add notes about "dma-ranges" property (drop note from commit message) > > > - document priorities of "iommus" property vs. "dma-ranges" property > > > - drop #iommu-cells in favour of #address-cells and #size-cells > > > - remove multiple-master device example > > > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/iommu.txt | 172 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 172 insertions(+) > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/iommu.txt > > > > I'm concerned that this patch hasn't been picked up for 3.17 (I can't see it > > in -next). If we want to move the ARM SMMU driver over to this new binding, > > we can't keep dragging our feet for much longer as I *really* don't plan to > > support two bindings in parallel (one is complicated enough already). > > > > Any chance we can see this merged, please? > > 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 the device tree > bindings maintainers? Rob, Mark: can one or both of you take a look at this please? Cheers, Will