On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 22:43:43 +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 10:38:10PM +0100, Tomasz Figa wrote: > > On Thursday 08 of August 2013 08:09:49 Rob Herring wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Cho KyongHo <pullip.cho@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > > Should this align with ARM System MMU bindings? > > > > System MMU in Exynos SoC is different from ARM System MMU. > > > > It does not follows the specifications of ARM System MMU. > > > > > > I'm not saying the h/w is the same or even the same spec, but how you > > > describe a master to iommu connection needs to be done in the same > > > way. This should be done in the same way for ALL iommu's. And if what > > > is defined does not work for you, then we need to understand that and > > > fix the binding now. > > > > +1 > > > > All IOMMUs should use a generic IOMMU Device Tree bindings (and in > > general, the same should be true for all Device Tree bindings). > > > > This means that if we already have some bindings for IOMMU, then they > > should be reused if possible or extended if there is anything missing. > > > > Of course there might be things that such generic bindings can't specify. > > In this case device-specific properties can be introduced, but this is > > last resort. > > I'm also happy to discuss and/or review bindings in light of what we did for > the ARM SMMU. > > Will Rob, I now understood what you are talking about. Do you mean the binding description is lack of details about connection betwen System MMU and its master? thanks. KyongHo. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |