On 16/03/2023 22:59, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > > > On 16.03.2023 20:29, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 15/03/2023 11:52, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >>> Both of these SoCs have a Qualcomm MMU500 implementation of SMMU >>> in front of their GPUs that expect 3 clocks. Both of them also have >>> an APPS SMMU that expects no clocks. Remove qcom,sm61[12]5-smmu-500 >>> from the "no clocks" list (intentionally 'breaking' the schema checks >>> of APPS SMMU, as now it *can* accept clocks - with the current >>> structure of this file it would have taken a wastefully-long time to >>> sort this out properly..) and add necessary yaml to describe the >>> clocks required by the GPU SMMUs. >> >> >>> + properties: >>> + compatible: >>> + items: >>> + - enum: >>> + - qcom,sm6115-smmu-500 >>> + - qcom,sm6125-smmu-500 >>> + - const: qcom,adreno-smmu >>> + - const: qcom,smmu-500 >>> + - const: arm,mmu-500 >> >> If you drop the hunk later (from allOf:if), then what clocks do you >> expect for non-GPU SMMU? > Both 6115 and 6125 require no clocks under the APPS (non-GPU) SMMU. > However, the list below uses a `contains:` which means I'd have > to add a whole another hunk like > > - items: > - enum: > - qcom,sm6115-smmu-500 > - qcom,sm6125-smmu-500 > - const: qcom,smmu-500 > - const: arm,mmu-500 > > and add another level of indentation to the previous one > > I figured skipping that was less messy (I think we discussed this > once as well), but if you prefer to keep it strict, I can. Nah, ok, it's fine. Best regards, Krzysztof
