On 2020-09-23 20:54, Robin Murphy wrote:
On 2020-09-22 07:18, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
Use table and of_match_node() to match qcom implementation
instead of multiple of_device_compatible() calls for each
QCOM SMMU implementation.
Signed-off-by: Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-impl.c | 12 ++++++++----
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-impl.c
b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-impl.c
index d199b4bff15d..ce78295cfa78 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-impl.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-impl.c
@@ -9,6 +9,13 @@
#include "arm-smmu.h"
+static const struct of_device_id __maybe_unused
qcom_smmu_impl_of_match[] = {
+ { .compatible = "qcom,sc7180-smmu-500" },
+ { .compatible = "qcom,sdm845-smmu-500" },
+ { .compatible = "qcom,sm8150-smmu-500" },
+ { .compatible = "qcom,sm8250-smmu-500" },
+ { }
+};
Can you push the table itself into arm-smmu-qcom? That way you'll be
free to add new SoCs willy-nilly without any possibility of
conflicting with anything else.
Bonus points if you can fold in the Adreno variant and keep everything
together ;)
Sure I can get bonus points :)
Thanks,
Sai
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a
member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
