Hi Will,
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 11:37 AM Vivek Gautam
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/12/2018 3:46 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:19:29 +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
> >> Qcom's implementation of arm,mmu-500 works well with current
> >> arm-smmu driver implementation. Adding a soc specific
On 10/12/2018 3:46 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:19:29 +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
Qcom's implementation of arm,mmu-500 works well with current
arm-smmu driver implementation. Adding a soc specific compatible
along with arm,mmu-500 makes the bindings future safe.
On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:19:29 +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
> Qcom's implementation of arm,mmu-500 works well with current
> arm-smmu driver implementation. Adding a soc specific compatible
> along with arm,mmu-500 makes the bindings future safe.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam
> ---
>
> Changes
Qcom's implementation of arm,mmu-500 works well with current
arm-smmu driver implementation. Adding a soc specific compatible
along with arm,mmu-500 makes the bindings future safe.
Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam
---
Changes since v3:
- Refined language more to state things directly for the
