On 8/27/2018 2:26 PM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
Hi Rob, Robin,
On 8/15/2018 4:27 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 01:09:43AM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
Adding Jordan here.
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 4:19 PM, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi Vivek,
On 14/08/18 11:27, Vivek Gautam wrote:
Add device node for qcom,smmu-v2 available on sdm845.
This smmu is available only to GPU device.
Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi
b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi
index 1c2be2082f33..bd1ec5fa5146 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
*/
#include <dt-bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-sdm845.h>
+#include <dt-bindings/clock/qcom,gpucc-sdm845.h>
#include <dt-bindings/clock/qcom,rpmh.h>
#include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/arm-gic.h>
#include <dt-bindings/soc/qcom,rpmh-rsc.h>
@@ -989,6 +990,28 @@
cell-index = <0>;
};
+ gpu_smmu: iommu@5040000 {
+ compatible = "qcom,sdm845-smmu-v2",
"qcom,smmu-v2";
Which of "sdm845" or "msm8996"[1] is the actual SoC name here?
Well, the bindings use the SoC prefix with smmu-v2, so it should be
sdm845 for this SoC. This is same as I posted in my v1 of the series
[2].
Using 8996 based string in sdm845 makes things look awful.
You need to list valid values of '<soc>' in the binding. Otherwise we
get this confusion.
Sorry for delayed response, I was away on vacation.
I will list down the valid values for '<soc>' as suggested, and respin
this series, and
smmu bindings patch that comes as part of the runtime pm series [3].
[3] https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/968017/
I have updated the binding doc with valid values for '<soc>' string [4].
Kindly review this based on [4].
[4] https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/977888/
Best regards
Vivek
