>Should NVIDIA_TEGRA194_SMMU be a separate value for smmu->model, perhaps? That
>way we avoid this somewhat odd check here.
NVIDIA haven't made any changes to arm,mmu-500. It is only used in different
topology. New model would be mis-leading here.
As suggested by Robin, It can just be moved to
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 12:16:55PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2020-06-23 11:29, Thierry Reding wrote:
> [...]
> > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-impl.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-impl.c
> > > index c75b9d957b702..52c84c30f83e4 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-impl.c
> > > +++
On 2020-06-23 11:29, Thierry Reding wrote:
[...]
diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-impl.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-impl.c
index c75b9d957b702..52c84c30f83e4 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-impl.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-impl.c
@@ -160,6 +160,9 @@ struct arm_smmu_device
On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 04:44:11PM -0700, Krishna Reddy wrote:
> NVIDIA's Tegra194 soc uses two ARM MMU-500s together to interleave
s/soc/SoC/
> IOVA accesses across them.
> Add NVIDIA implementation for dual ARM MMU-500s and add new compatible
> string for Tegra194 soc.
Same here.
>
>
