On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 05:35:58PM +0000, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 11/22/2013 12:41 AM, Grant Likely wrote: > > It seems more that IOMMU attachment is closer to being a property of the > > bus rather than a property of the device itself. In that context it > > would make more sense for the bus device to hold off child device > > registration or probing until the IOMMU is available. That keeps the > > logic out of both the core code and the individual device drivers. > > The bus structure that DT and Linux know about is the register bus. > There's no reason that devices have to emit their master transactions > onto that same bus, or onto only that same bus.
Agreed. Dave (CC'd) and I actually had a lot of discussion around the DT bus abstractions last week and we ended up with a binding that looked sane enough to start a meaningful discussion in this area. Dave -- care to post what we came up with? It certainly has a bunch of overlap with the IOMMU problems being discussed here. Will _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
