On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 04:26:47PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
Hi Thierry,
This looks sane to me.
I just have a few questions below which are hopefully simple/stupid.
On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 04:29:17PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
From: Thierry Reding tred...@nvidia.com
This commit
[...]
+Examples:
+=
+
+Single-master IOMMU:
+
+
+ iommu {
+ #iommu-cells = 0;
+ };
+
+ master {
+ iommus = /iommu;
Nit: this should be iommus = {/iommu}, or it's not valid dts syntax.
Done.
Cheers. I take it
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:35:06AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
Hi Thierry,
This looks sane to me.
I just have a few questions below which are hopefully simple/stupid.
On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 04:29:17PM
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 07:18:42PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
[...]
+
+Multiple-master IOMMU with configurable DMA window:
+---
+
+ / {
+ #address-cells = 1;
+ #size-cells = 1;
+
+
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:22:41AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
[...]
+Examples:
+=
+
+Single-master IOMMU:
+
+
+ iommu {
+ #iommu-cells = 0;
+ };
+
+ master {
+ iommus =
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:18:08PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
It looks like this hasn't been applied yet, so I can send out a v5
shortly with the requested changes addressed.
Yes, please send a v5 with the requested changes and all Reviewed-bys
and Acked-bys this got so far. I'll take it into
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:23:51PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:18:08PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
It looks like this hasn't been applied yet, so I can send out a v5
shortly with the requested changes addressed.
Yes, please send a v5 with the requested changes
Hi all,
On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 04:29:17PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
From: Thierry Reding tred...@nvidia.com
This commit introduces a generic device tree binding for IOMMU devices.
Only a very minimal subset is described here, but it is enough to cover
the requirements of both the Exynos
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 12:04:25PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
Hi all,
On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 04:29:17PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
From: Thierry Reding tred...@nvidia.com
This commit introduces a generic device tree binding for IOMMU devices.
Only a very minimal subset is described
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 03:23:50PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
I think there weren't any comments left for me to address and I've
mostly been waiting for Joerg to pick it up.
Joerg, can you take this through the iommu tree for 3.17? Will acked
this, but perhaps you were waiting for an ACK
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 02:23:50PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 12:04:25PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 04:29:17PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
From: Thierry Reding tred...@nvidia.com
This commit introduces a generic device tree binding for
Hi Thierry,
This looks sane to me.
I just have a few questions below which are hopefully simple/stupid.
On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 04:29:17PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
From: Thierry Reding tred...@nvidia.com
This commit introduces a generic device tree binding for IOMMU devices.
Only a
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
Hi Thierry,
This looks sane to me.
I just have a few questions below which are hopefully simple/stupid.
On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 04:29:17PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
From: Thierry Reding tred...@nvidia.com
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 6:33 AM, Joerg Roedel j...@8bytes.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 03:23:50PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
I think there weren't any comments left for me to address and I've
mostly been waiting for Joerg to pick it up.
Joerg, can you take this through the iommu tree
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 02:23:50PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 12:04:25PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 04:29:17PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
From: Thierry Reding
[...]
+Multiple-master IOMMU:
+--
+
+ iommu {
+ /* the specifier represents the ID of the master */
+ #iommu-cells = 1;
+ };
+
+ master@1 {
+ /* device has master ID 42 in the IOMMU */
+ iommus =
On Wednesday 30 July 2014, Thierry Reding wrote:
se?
I think there weren't any comments left for me to address and I've
mostly been waiting for Joerg to pick it up.
Joerg, can you take this through the iommu tree for 3.17? Will acked
this, but perhaps you were waiting for an ACK from the
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 02:25:20AM +0100, Olav Haugan wrote:
On 7/13/2014 4:43 AM, Rob Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 5:43 AM, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote:
My plan for the ARM SMMU driver is:
(1) Change -probe() to walk the device-tree looking for all masters with
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Olav Haugan ohau...@codeaurora.org wrote:
On 7/13/2014 4:43 AM, Rob Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 5:43 AM, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 01:57:31PM +0100, Rob Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Arnd Bergmann
On 7/13/2014 4:43 AM, Rob Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 5:43 AM, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 01:57:31PM +0100, Rob Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Saturday 12 July 2014, Rob Clark wrote:
Was there
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 02:22:01PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Saturday 12 July 2014, Rob Clark wrote:
Was there actually a good reason for having the device link to the
iommu rather than the other way around? How much would people hate it
if I just ignore the generic bindings and
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 10:43:41AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 01:57:31PM +0100, Rob Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Saturday 12 July 2014, Rob Clark wrote:
Was there actually a good reason for having the device
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 2:24 AM, Thierry Reding
thierry.red...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 08:57:31AM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
[...]
The way that Thierry's binding does that is the obvious solution to this,
and
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 01:57:31PM +0100, Rob Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Saturday 12 July 2014, Rob Clark wrote:
Was there actually a good reason for having the device link to the
iommu rather than the other way around? How much
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 5:43 AM, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 01:57:31PM +0100, Rob Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Saturday 12 July 2014, Rob Clark wrote:
Was there actually a good reason for having the
Hi Rob,
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 09:55:14PM +0100, Rob Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Thierry Reding
thierry.red...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Thierry Reding tred...@nvidia.com
ok, so I was working through this to try to convert my
{qcom,msm}-iommu-v0 RFC over to using these
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 5:39 AM, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote:
Hi Rob,
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 09:55:14PM +0100, Rob Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Thierry Reding
thierry.red...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Thierry Reding tred...@nvidia.com
ok, so I was working through
On Saturday 12 July 2014, Rob Clark wrote:
Was there actually a good reason for having the device link to the
iommu rather than the other way around? How much would people hate it
if I just ignore the generic bindings and use something that works for
me instead. I mean, it isn't exactly
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Saturday 12 July 2014, Rob Clark wrote:
Was there actually a good reason for having the device link to the
iommu rather than the other way around? How much would people hate it
if I just ignore the generic bindings and
On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Thierry Reding
thierry.red...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Thierry Reding tred...@nvidia.com
This commit introduces a generic device tree binding for IOMMU devices.
Only a very minimal subset is described here, but it is enough to cover
the requirements of both the
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:49:10AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 07:10:48PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 03:21:27PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
Anything beyond that (e.g. logical grouping of masters) isn't directly
within the scope of the
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:23:34AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:49:10AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 07:10:48PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 03:21:27PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
Anything beyond that (e.g. logical
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:57:38AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:23:34AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:49:10AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 07:10:48PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 03:21:27PM
On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 04:29:17PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
From: Thierry Reding tred...@nvidia.com
This commit introduces a generic device tree binding for IOMMU devices.
Only a very minimal subset is described here, but it is enough to cover
the requirements of both the Exynos System
Hi Thierry,
On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 03:21:27PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 02:40:50PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
I would like to move the ARM SMMU driver over to this for 3.18, if possible.
One use-case there is the ability to describe groups of masters behind a
35 matches
Mail list logo
