>> + - description: NVIDIA SoCs that use more than one "arm,mmu-500" > Hmm, there must be a better way to word that to express that it only applies > to the sets of SMMUs that must be programmed identically, and not any other > independent MMU-500s that might also happen to be in the same SoC.
Let me reword it to "NVIDIA SoCs that must program multiple MMU-500s identically". >> + items: >> + - enum: >> + - nvdia,tegra194-smmu >> + - const: arm,mmu-500 >Is the fallback compatible appropriate here? If software treats this as a >standard MMU-500 it will only program the first instance (because the second >isn't presented as a separate MMU-500) - is there any way that isn't going to >blow up? When compatible is set to both nvidia,tegra194-smmu and arm,mmu-500, implementation override ensure that both instances are programmed. Isn't it? I am not sure I follow your comment fully. -KR _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list email@example.com https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu