Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm-smmu: Document SM61[12]5 GPU SMMU

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>]

On 16/03/2023 22:59, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> 
> 
> On 16.03.2023 20:29, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 15/03/2023 11:52, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>> Both of these SoCs have a Qualcomm MMU500 implementation of SMMU
>>> in front of their GPUs that expect 3 clocks. Both of them also have
>>> an APPS SMMU that expects no clocks. Remove qcom,sm61[12]5-smmu-500
>>> from the "no clocks" list (intentionally 'breaking' the schema checks
>>> of APPS SMMU, as now it *can* accept clocks - with the current
>>> structure of this file it would have taken a wastefully-long time to
>>> sort this out properly..) and add necessary yaml to describe the
>>> clocks required by the GPU SMMUs.
>>
>>
>>> +      properties:
>>> +        compatible:
>>> +          items:
>>> +            - enum:
>>> +                - qcom,sm6115-smmu-500
>>> +                - qcom,sm6125-smmu-500
>>> +            - const: qcom,adreno-smmu
>>> +            - const: qcom,smmu-500
>>> +            - const: arm,mmu-500
>>
>> If you drop the hunk later (from allOf:if), then what clocks do you
>> expect for non-GPU SMMU?
> Both 6115 and 6125 require no clocks under the APPS (non-GPU) SMMU.
> However, the list below uses a `contains:` which means I'd have
> to add a whole another hunk like
> 
> 	- items:
>             - enum:
>                 - qcom,sm6115-smmu-500
>                 - qcom,sm6125-smmu-500
>             - const: qcom,smmu-500
>             - const: arm,mmu-500
> 
> and add another level of indentation to the previous one
> 
> I figured skipping that was less messy (I think we discussed this
> once as well), but if you prefer to keep it strict, I can.

Nah, ok, it's fine.

Best regards,
Krzysztof