Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758142Ab3HHVnu (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Aug 2013 17:43:50 -0400 Received: from cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com ([217.140.96.50]:39846 "EHLO cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752871Ab3HHVns (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Aug 2013 17:43:48 -0400 Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 22:43:43 +0100 From: Will Deacon To: Tomasz Figa Cc: Rob Herring , Cho KyongHo , Linux ARM Kernel , Linux IOMMU , Linux Kernel , Linux Samsung SOC , Kukjin Kim , Hyunwoong Kim , Prathyush , Grant Grundler , Joerg Roedel , Keyyoung Park , Subash Patel , Sachin Kamat , Antonios Motakis , "kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" , Rahul Sharma Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 06/12] ARM: dts: Add description of System MMU of Exynos SoCs Message-ID: <20130808214343.GA19383@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> References: <003c01ce89f3$3abc4bc0$b034e340$@samsung.com> <003801ce8eb7$d7647f10$862d7d30$@samsung.com> <5354557.DijgoUKjW2@flatron> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5354557.DijgoUKjW2@flatron> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1518 Lines: 35 On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 10:38:10PM +0100, Tomasz Figa wrote: > On Thursday 08 of August 2013 08:09:49 Rob Herring wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Cho KyongHo > wrote: > > > Should this align with ARM System MMU bindings? > > > System MMU in Exynos SoC is different from ARM System MMU. > > > It does not follows the specifications of ARM System MMU. > > > > I'm not saying the h/w is the same or even the same spec, but how you > > describe a master to iommu connection needs to be done in the same > > way. This should be done in the same way for ALL iommu's. And if what > > is defined does not work for you, then we need to understand that and > > fix the binding now. > > +1 > > All IOMMUs should use a generic IOMMU Device Tree bindings (and in > general, the same should be true for all Device Tree bindings). > > This means that if we already have some bindings for IOMMU, then they > should be reused if possible or extended if there is anything missing. > > Of course there might be things that such generic bindings can't specify. > In this case device-specific properties can be introduced, but this is > last resort. I'm also happy to discuss and/or review bindings in light of what we did for the ARM SMMU. Will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/