[PATCH v2 3/3] dts: arm64/sdm845: Add node for qcom,smmu-v2

On 8/27/2018 2:26 PM, Vivek Gautam wrote:

Hi Rob, Robin,


On 8/15/2018 4:27 AM, Rob Herring wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 01:09:43AM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:

quoted

Adding Jordan here.

On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 4:19 PM, Robin Murphy [off-list ref] 
wrote:

quoted

Hi Vivek,

On 14/08/18 11:27, Vivek Gautam wrote:

quoted

Add device node for qcom,smmu-v2 available on sdm845.
This smmu is available only to GPU device.

Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <redacted>
---
?? 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 at 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