On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 11:19:30PM +0100, Chalamarla, Tirumalesh wrote: > > On Jun 1, 2015, at 3:22 AM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > It's possible to specify that the paths exist. I expect that software > > would select which to use at runtime. > > > My worry is how to define any priorities/preferences between masters. > in general the proposal looks reasonable. I agree that the proposal looks reasonable (in terms of the ability to describe the sort of topologies that we will face) but I still don't understand what I need to do in e.g. my IOMMU driver to support this binding whilst continuing to support the existing iommus binding, which is relied upon to configure dma-mapping. Mark: how do you see this co-existing/merging with the current bindings? I don't think it's practical to throw away what we have and move over to something totally different all in one go, but there clearly *is* benefit in your proposal over the existing scheme. Will -- 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
