From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rob Herring Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] iommu/arm-smmu: Add support for qcom, smmu-500 variant Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 10:30:09 -0600 Message-ID: References: <20180307063219.14409-1-vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180307063219.14409-1-vivek.gautam-sgV2jX0FEOL9JmXXK+q4OQ@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: iommu-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: iommu-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Vivek Gautam Cc: Mark Rutland , "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" , Will Deacon , open list , Linux IOMMU , "moderated list:ARM SMMU DRIVERS" List-Id: iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 12:32 AM, Vivek Gautam wrote: > Qualcomm's arm-smmu 500 implementation supports runtime pm > so enable the same. That's a driver detail unrelated to the binding. > > Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam > --- > > Based on iommu/arm-smmu pm runtime support series [1]: > [PATCH v8 0/5] iommu/arm-smmu: Add runtime pm/sleep support > > Tested on sdm845 with necessary support to enable the smmu > and with necessary user. > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/2/325 > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.txt | 14 ++++++++++++++ Please split bindings to separate patches. > drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c | 8 ++++++++ > 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.txt > index 6ea27bd4f785..0b5c6d2a9865 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.txt > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.txt > @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ conditions. > "arm,mmu-500" > "cavium,smmu-v2" > "qcom,-smmu-v2", "qcom,smmu-v2" I don't even see this one in the tree yet... > + "qcom,-smmu-500", "qcom,smmu-500" IIRC, the mmu-500 is SMMU v2 implementation, right? Having qcom,smmu-500 seems kind of pointless. Given that we're there's only 1 SoC for "qcom,-smmu-v2" and you're already on to a new genericish compatible, just do SoC specific compatible strings. Rob