On 2020-09-22 07:18, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
Use table and of_match_node() to match qcom implementation
instead of multiple of_device_compatible() calls for each
QCOM SMMU implementation.
Signed-off-by: Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ran...@codeaurora.org>
---
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-impl.c | 12 ++++++++----
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-impl.c
b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-impl.c
index d199b4bff15d..ce78295cfa78 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-impl.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-impl.c
@@ -9,6 +9,13 @@
#include "arm-smmu.h"
+static const struct of_device_id __maybe_unused qcom_smmu_impl_of_match[] = {
+ { .compatible = "qcom,sc7180-smmu-500" },
+ { .compatible = "qcom,sdm845-smmu-500" },
+ { .compatible = "qcom,sm8150-smmu-500" },
+ { .compatible = "qcom,sm8250-smmu-500" },
+ { }
+};
Can you push the table itself into arm-smmu-qcom? That way you'll be
free to add new SoCs willy-nilly without any possibility of conflicting
with anything else.
Bonus points if you can fold in the Adreno variant and keep everything
together ;)
Robin.
static int arm_smmu_gr0_ns(int offset)
{
@@ -217,10 +224,7 @@ struct arm_smmu_device *arm_smmu_impl_init(struct
arm_smmu_device *smmu)
if (of_device_is_compatible(np, "nvidia,tegra194-smmu"))
return nvidia_smmu_impl_init(smmu);
- if (of_device_is_compatible(np, "qcom,sdm845-smmu-500") ||
- of_device_is_compatible(np, "qcom,sc7180-smmu-500") ||
- of_device_is_compatible(np, "qcom,sm8150-smmu-500") ||
- of_device_is_compatible(np, "qcom,sm8250-smmu-500"))
+ if (of_match_node(qcom_smmu_impl_of_match, np))
return qcom_smmu_impl_init(smmu);
if (of_device_is_compatible(smmu->dev->of_node, "qcom,adreno-smmu"))
