Re: [PATCH v8 2/3] dt-bindings: arm-smmu: Add binding for Tegra194 SMMU

From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
To: Krishna Reddy <vdumpa@nvidia.com>,
	Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>
Cc: Sachin Nikam <Snikam@nvidia.com>,
	"nicoleotsuka@gmail.com" <nicoleotsuka@gmail.com>,
	Mikko Perttunen <mperttunen@nvidia.com>,
	Bryan Huntsman <bhuntsman@nvidia.com>,
	"joro@8bytes.org" <joro@8bytes.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Pritesh Raithatha <praithatha@nvidia.com>,
	Timo Alho <talho@nvidia.com>,
	"iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org"
	<iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>,
	"linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org>,
	Yu-Huan Hsu <YHsu@nvidia.com>,
	Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>,
	"will@kernel.org" <will@kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Bitan Biswas <bbiswas@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/3] dt-bindings: arm-smmu: Add binding for Tegra194 SMMU
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 17:05:05 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <04e35d51-5e65-047d-90ef-a2de901eb15d@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR12MB2822EE99210BFA984ECB954AB36C0@BYAPR12MB2822.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>

On 2020-07-01 20:39, Krishna Reddy wrote:
> On 01/07/2020 20:00, Krishna Reddy wrote:
>>>>>>> +        items:
>>>>>>> +          - enum:
>>>>>>> +              - nvdia,tegra194-smmu
>>>>>>> +          - const: arm,mmu-500
>>>>>
>>>>>> Is the fallback compatible appropriate here? If software treats this as a standard MMU-500 it will only program the first instance (because the second isn't presented as a separate MMU-500) - is there any way that isn't going to blow up?
>>>>>
>>>>> When compatible is set to both nvidia,tegra194-smmu and arm,mmu-500, implementation override ensure that both instances are programmed. Isn't it? I am not sure I follow your comment fully.
>>>
>>>> The problem is, if for some reason someone had a Tegra194, but only set the compatible string to 'arm,mmu-500' it would assume that it was a normal arm,mmu-500 and only one instance would be programmed. We always want at least 2 of the 3 instances >>programmed and so we should only match 'nvidia,tegra194-smmu'. In fact, I think that we also need to update the arm_smmu_of_match table to add 'nvidia,tegra194-smmu' with the data set to &arm_mmu500.
>>>
>>> In that case, new binding "nvidia,smmu-v2" can be added with data set to &arm_mmu500 and enumeration would have nvidia,tegra194-smmu and another variant for next generation SoC in future.
> 
>> I think you would be better off with nvidia,smmu-500 as smmu-v2 appears to be something different. I see others have a smmu-v2 but I am not sure if that is legacy. We have an smmu-500 and so that would seem more appropriate.
> 
> I tried to use the binding synonymous to other vendors.
> V2 is the architecture version.  MMU-500 is the actual implementation from ARM based on V2 arch.  As we just use the MMU-500 IP as it is, It can be named as nvidia,smmu-500 or similar as well.

Yup, that sounds OK to me if you want a broader compatible to 
potentially match other future SoCs as well.

> Others probably having their own implementation based on V2 arch.

Exactly - "cavium,smmu-v2" and "qcom,smmu-v2" are their own in-house 
microarchitectures, not one of Arm's designs, so they don't really have 
a suitable 'product name' we could have used for the bindings.

Robin.

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