On 22/11/2019 11:31 pm, Jordan Crouse wrote:
Add a compatible string to identify SMMUs that are attached
to Adreno GPU devices that wish to support split pagetables.
A software policy decision is not, in itself, a good justification for a
DT property. Is the GPU SMMU fundamentally different in hardware* from
the other SMMU(s) in any given SoC?
(* where "hardware" may encompass hypervisor shenanigans)
Signed-off-by: Jordan Crouse <[email protected]>
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml | 6 ++++++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml
b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml
index 6515dbe..db9f826 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml
@@ -31,6 +31,12 @@ properties:
- qcom,sdm845-smmu-v2
- const: qcom,smmu-v2
+ - description: Qcom Adreno GPU SMMU iplementing split pagetables
+ items:
+ - enum:
+ - qcom,adreno-smmu-v2
+ - const: qcom,smmu-v2
Given that we already have per-SoC compatibles for Qcom SMMUs in
general, this seems suspiciously vague.
Robin.
+
- description: Qcom SoCs implementing "arm,mmu-500"
items:
- enum:
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
