Hi Laurent, On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Laurent Pinchart <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Magnus, > > On Tuesday 16 December 2014 07:44:32 Magnus Damm wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 3:44 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >> > On Monday 15 December 2014 14:07:52 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> >> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 1:13 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >> >> > Add the seven IPMMU instances found in the r8a7791 to DT with a >> >> > disabled status. >> >> > >> >> > Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart >> >> > <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> The addresses and interrupt numbers look OK to me. >> >> However, my comment about the "0x800" offset is still valid. >> >> Shouldn't we have two register blocks, and let the driver use only the >> >> second one? >> >> >> >> If you ignore, feel free to add my >> >> Acked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> >> > >> > I don't want to ignore your comment, but I don't know what to do here :-/ >> > The datasheet lacks detailed information about secure vs. non-secure mode >> > and how the two register sets are supposed to interoperate and be handled >> > by the operating system. >> >> I don't know about that either. >> >> But how about differences within R-Car Gen2 series so far? If there >> are known differences then perhaps we should use part number in the >> compatible string? > > I haven't noticed differences between H2 and M2. V2 and E2 are extended with > IOMMU performance monitoring registers, so a specific compatible string is > needed.
Ok! > "renesas,ipmmu-vmsa" should be the default fallback compatible string. I was > thinking about playing with the newer SoCs first to see how the IOMMU react > and then most likely add SoC-specific compatible strings. Sounds good, thanks! / magnus _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
