On 10/31/2013 12:02 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 05:40:29PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: >> For the ARM SMMU binding, each device has a #stream-id-cells property >> describing how many IDs it has, and then the SMMU node has a phandle+args >> linkage to each of the devices attached to it, describing their stream IDs. >> While this does have some limitations (a device can't be plugged into >> multiple >> SMMUs with a different number of IDs), it seems generally sane. > > If a device masters through two separate SMMUs, I think you need to describe > it as two devices. Even if you could describe the thing in DT, the Linux > driver/iommu model will quickly fall over.
Isn't that an internal Linux driver model issue? If there's a single logical HW block, it seems like it should have a single DT node. The fact that the DT node then somehow needs to instantiate two struct device objects within Linux seems like it shouldn't influence the DT design. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
