From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Will Deacon Subject: Re: Master-aware devices and sideband ID data Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 10:05:34 +0100 Message-ID: <20150605090534.GC1198@arm.com> References: <20150324155007.GC23005@leverpostej> <26BE36EF-2C5B-4DA6-8950-8FEBB031ED1B@caviumnetworks.com> <20150527173953.GC23176@leverpostej> <20150601102208.GD22406@leverpostej> <158EFC9F-FCAF-44D3-AD40-804EDFE0CE25@caviumnetworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <158EFC9F-FCAF-44D3-AD40-804EDFE0CE25-M3mlKVOIwJVv6pq1l3V1OdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: "Chalamarla, Tirumalesh" Cc: Mark Rutland , "devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "robh-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org" , "arnd-r2nGTMty4D4@public.gmane.org" , Marc Zyngier , "joro-zLv9SwRftAIdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org" , "iommu-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org" , "thierry.reding-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org" , "laurent.pinchart-ryLnwIuWjnjg/C1BVhZhaw@public.gmane.org" , "olof-nZhT3qVonbNeoWH0uzbU5w@public.gmane.org" , "Varun.Sethi-KZfg59tc24xl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org" , "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" , "hdoyu-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 11:19:30PM +0100, Chalamarla, Tirumalesh wrote: > > On Jun 1, 2015, at 3:22 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > > It's possible to specify that the paths exist. I expect that software > > would select which to use at runtime. > > > My worry is how to define any priorities/preferences between masters. > in general the proposal looks reasonable. I agree that the proposal looks reasonable (in terms of the ability to describe the sort of topologies that we will face) but I still don't understand what I need to do in e.g. my IOMMU driver to support this binding whilst continuing to support the existing iommus binding, which is relied upon to configure dma-mapping. Mark: how do you see this co-existing/merging with the current bindings? I don't think it's practical to throw away what we have and move over to something totally different all in one go, but there clearly *is* benefit in your proposal over the existing scheme. Will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html