On Friday 30 May 2014 14:31:55 Rob Herring wrote: > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Friday 30 May 2014 08:16:05 Rob Herring wrote: > >> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Thierry Reding > >> <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > From: Thierry Reding <treding@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > +IOMMU master node: > >> > +================== > >> > + > >> > +Devices that access memory through an IOMMU are called masters. A device can > >> > +have multiple master interfaces (to one or more IOMMU devices). > >> > + > >> > +Required properties: > >> > +-------------------- > >> > +- iommus: A list of phandle and IOMMU specifier pairs that describe the IOMMU > >> > + master interfaces of the device. One entry in the list describes one master > >> > + interface of the device. > >> > + > >> > +When an "iommus" property is specified in a device tree node, the IOMMU will > >> > +be used for address translation. If a "dma-ranges" property exists in the > >> > +device's parent node it will be ignored. An exception to this rule is if the > >> > +referenced IOMMU is disabled, in which case the "dma-ranges" property of the > >> > +parent shall take effect. > >> > >> Just thinking out loud, could you have dma-ranges in the iommu node > >> for the case when the iommu is enabled rather than putting the DMA > >> window information into the iommus property? > >> > >> This would probably mean that you need both #iommu-cells and #address-cells. > > > > The reason for doing like this was that you may need a different window > > for each device, while there can only be one dma-ranges property in > > an iommu node. > > My suggestion was that you also put the IDs in the dma-ranges as the > first cell much as ranges for PCI encodes other information in the > first cell. Then you can have an entry for each ID. The downside is > another special case like PCI. > > The argument for using #address-cells and #size-cells seems to be to > align with how ranges work. If that's the route we want to go, then I > say we should not stop there and actually use dma-ranges as well. > Otherwise, I don't see the advantage over #iommu-cells. I can see how dma-ranges in bus nodes work, it just doesn't seem to have any reasonable meaning in the iommu node itself. > > I don't understand the problem. If you have stream IDs 0 through 7, > > you would have > > > > master@a { > > ... > > iommus = <&smmu 0>; > > }; > > > > master@b { > > ... > > iommus = <&smmu 1; > > }; > > > > ... > > > > master@12 { > > ... > > iommus = <&smmu 7; > > }; > > > > and you don't need a window at all. Why would you need a mask of > > some sort? > > 1 master with 7 IDs like this: > > master@a { > ... > iommus = <&smmu 0> <&smmu 1> <&smmu 2> <&smmu 3> > <&smmu 4> <&smmu 5> <&smmu 6> <&smmu 7>; > }; > > If there was any sort of window, then it is almost certainly the same > window for each ID. Ok, I see. In that case you'd probably want to have #address-cells = <1> and #size-cells = <1> and give a range of IDs like iommus = <&smmu 0 8>; Do you think that ranges can have a meaningful definition with the ARM SMMU stream IDs? Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html