On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 12:32 AM, Vivek Gautam <vivek.gau...@codeaurora.org> wrote: > Qualcomm's arm-smmu 500 implementation supports runtime pm > so enable the same.
That's a driver detail unrelated to the binding. > > Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <vivek.gau...@codeaurora.org> > --- > > Based on iommu/arm-smmu pm runtime support series [1]: > [PATCH v8 0/5] iommu/arm-smmu: Add runtime pm/sleep support > > Tested on sdm845 with necessary support to enable the smmu > and with necessary user. > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/2/325 > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.txt | 14 ++++++++++++++ Please split bindings to separate patches. > drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c | 8 ++++++++ > 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.txt > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.txt > index 6ea27bd4f785..0b5c6d2a9865 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.txt > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.txt > @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ conditions. > "arm,mmu-500" > "cavium,smmu-v2" > "qcom,<soc>-smmu-v2", "qcom,smmu-v2" I don't even see this one in the tree yet... > + "qcom,<soc>-smmu-500", "qcom,smmu-500" IIRC, the mmu-500 is SMMU v2 implementation, right? Having qcom,smmu-500 seems kind of pointless. Given that we're there's only 1 SoC for "qcom,<soc>-smmu-v2" and you're already on to a new genericish compatible, just do SoC specific compatible strings. Rob _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
