On 30/06/2020 18:16, Krishna Reddy wrote:

quoted

OK, well I see what you are saying, but if we intended to support all 3 for Tegra194, then we should ensure all 3 are initialised correctly.

The driver intend to support up to 3 instances. It doesn't really mandate that all three instances be present in same DT node.
Each mmio aperture in "reg" property is an instance here. reg = <inst0_base, size>, <inst1_base, size>, <inst2_base, size>;
The reg can have all three or less and driver just configures based on reg and it works fine.

So it sounds like we need at least 2 SMMUs (for non-iso and iso) but we
have up to 3 (for Tegra194). So the question is do we have a use-case
where we only use 2 and not 3? If not, then it still seems that we
should require that all 3 are present.

The other problem I see here is that currently the arm-smmu binding
defines the 'reg' with a 'maxItems' of 1, whereas we have 3. I believe
that this will get caught by the 'dt_binding_check' when we try to
populate the binding.

quoted

It would be better to query the number of SMMUs populated in device-tree and then ensure that all are initialised correctly.

Getting the IORESOURCE_MEM is the way to count the instances driver need to support.  
In a way, It is already querying through IORESOURCE_MEM here. 

Yes I was wondering that. I think we just need to decide if the 3rd SMMU
is optional or not. The DT binding should detail and min and max supported.	

Jon

-- 
nvpublic

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel