On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 07:15:37PM +0530, Sricharan wrote: > >Clocks are not architectural, so it only makes sense to associate them > >with an implementation-specific compatible string. There's also no > > ok, it for this the QCOM specific implementation binding is tried(going to). > > >guarantee that different microarchitectures have equivalent internal > >clock domains - I'm not sure if "the SMMU's underlying bus access" is > >meant to refer to accesses *by* the SMMU, i.e. page table walks, > >accesses *through* the SMMU by upstream masters, or both > > In the above QCOM case, it is actually both. Its the same path for both the > page table walker and upstream masters. > > >differences are rather significant. I'd also note that an MMU-500 > >configuration may have up to *33* clocks. > > > >Either way, the QCOM implementation deserves its own compatible if only > >for the sake of the imp-def gaps in the architecture (e.g. FSR.SS > >behaviour WRT to IRQs as touched upon in the other thread). > > > > Ok, slightly unclear, so you mean then *clocks* are not good enough reason > to have a new compatible ? I beleive Robin's point was even if the clocks didn't matter, there are other reasons we should have the QCOM-specific compatible string. So we should have one regardless. Thanks, Mark. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
