Am Mon, 7 Oct 2024 11:48:24 -0300 schrieb Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx>: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 04:01:17PM +0200, Andreas Kemnade wrote: > > > @@ -1233,6 +1233,12 @@ static int omap_iommu_probe(struct > > > platform_device *pdev) err = iommu_device_register(&obj->iommu, > > > &omap_iommu_ops, &pdev->dev); if (err) > > > goto out_sysfs; > > > + /* > > > + * omap has a DT reprensetation but can't use the > > > common DT > > > + * code. Setting fwnode to NULL causes probe to be > > > called for > > > + * every device. > > > + */ > > > + obj->iommu.fwnode = NULL; > > > obj->has_iommu_driver = true; > > > } > > > > > hmm, that looks nice for a regression fix. > > > > Does it make sense to adopt dt so that the common code can be used > > to ease future maintenance? > > It would be nice, but I recall omap doesn't use the standard dt > layout? > that is what is said in the comment. But what is missing? Is it one or two properties at one place, or is it turing everything upside-down? Regards, Andreas
