On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 16:25:11 +0100, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> On 18.03.2014 11:52, Cho KyongHo wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 14:39:33 +0100, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> >>> @@ -557,11 +558,23 @@ static int exynos_sysmmu_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>> return 0;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> -static struct platform_driver exynos_sysmmu_driver = {
> >>> - .probe = exynos_sysmmu_probe,
> >>> - .driver = {
> >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
> >>> +static struct of_device_id sysmmu_of_match[] __initconst = {
> >>> + { .compatible = "samsung,sysmmu-v1", },
> >>> + { .compatible = "samsung,sysmmu-v2", },
> >>> + { .compatible = "samsung,sysmmu-v3.1", },
> >>> + { .compatible = "samsung,sysmmu-v3.2", },
> >>> + { .compatible = "samsung,sysmmu-v3.3", },
> >>
> >> Do you need all these compatible strings? I mean, are there any
> >> implementation differences that can't be identified by reading IP
> >> registers, such as REG_MMU_VERSION?
> >>
> >
> > Unfortunately, there is a SoC which overrides REG_MMU_VERSION with
> > a value for RTL designers and it is not related to System MMU
> > versions.
>
> OK.
>
> What about having a generic compatible string for Samsung SysMMU then,
> but an additional property that can override the version to account for
> such brokenness? If not provided, the version would be read from
> REG_MMU_VERSION.
>
Yes it is one of possible idea.
Let me think what better way is.
Thank you.
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
