>> +      - 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 

>> +        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.


iommu mailing list

Reply via email to