Hi Stuart,
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 06:16:13PM -0600, Stuart Yoder wrote:
> The generic IOMMU binding says that the meaning of an 'IOMMU specifier'
> is defined by the binding of a specific SMMU. The ARM SMMU binding
> never explicitly uses the term 'specifier' at all. Update implicit
> reference
On 16/12/16 02:36, Stuart Yoder wrote:
> For context, please see the thread:
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg539066.html
>
> The existing iommu-map binding did not account for the situation where
> #iommu-cells == 2, as permitted in the ARM SMMU binding. The 2nd cell
> of the IOMMU
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 02:36:57AM +, Stuart Yoder wrote:
> For context, please see the thread:
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg539066.html
>
> The existing iommu-map binding did not account for the situation where
> #iommu-cells == 2, as permitted in the ARM SMMU binding. The 2
Hi Rob,
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 06:30:21PM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Enabling stalling faults can result in hardware deadlock on poorly
> > designed systems, particularly those with a PCI root complex upstream of
> > the SMMU.
> >
> > Althou
The current SMR masking support using a 2-cell iommu-specifier is
primarily intended to handle individual masters with large and/or
complex Stream ID assignments; it quickly gets a bit clunky in other SMR
use-cases where we just want to consistently mask out the same part of
every Stream ID (e.g. f
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Rutland [mailto:mark.rutl...@arm.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 5:33 AM
> To: Stuart Yoder
> Cc: robh...@kernel.org; devicet...@vger.kernel.org;
> linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org; j...@8bytes.org;
> iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org; will.dea...@arm
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Rutland [mailto:mark.rutl...@arm.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 5:39 AM
> To: Stuart Yoder
> Cc: robin.mur...@arm.com; will.dea...@arm.com; robh...@kernel.org; Bharat
> Bhushan
> ; Nipun Gupta ; Diana Madalina
> Craciun
> ; devicet...@vger.kern
On 16/12/16 14:21, Stuart Yoder wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Mark Rutland [mailto:mark.rutl...@arm.com]
>> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 5:39 AM
>> To: Stuart Yoder
>> Cc: robin.mur...@arm.com; will.dea...@arm.com; robh...@kernel.org; Bharat
>> Bhushan
>> ; Nipun Gupta ;
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 02:08:09PM +, Stuart Yoder wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Mark Rutland [mailto:mark.rutl...@arm.com]
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 06:16:13PM -0600, Stuart Yoder wrote:
> > > In the iommu-map binding change references to iommu-specifier to
> > > "
> -Original Message-
> From: Bharat Bhushan
> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 9:46 PM
> To: Stuart Yoder ; Mark Rutland ;
> robin.mur...@arm.com;
> will.dea...@arm.com
> Cc: robh...@kernel.org; Nipun Gupta ; Diana Madalina
> Craciun
> ; devicet...@vger.kernel.org;
> iommu@lists.linux
> -Original Message-
> From: Robin Murphy [mailto:robin.mur...@arm.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 8:21 PM
> To: Stuart Yoder ; Mark Rutland
>
> Cc: will.dea...@arm.com; robh...@kernel.org; Bharat Bhushan
> ; Nipun Gupta ; Diana
> Madalina Craciun ; devicet...@vger.kernel.org;
> i
> >>> The existing iommu-map binding did not account for the situation where
> >>> #iommu-cells == 2, as permitted in the ARM SMMU binding. The 2nd cell
> >>> of the IOMMU specifier being the SMR mask. The existing binding defines
> >>> the mapping as:
> >>>Any RID r in the interval [rid-base
On 16/12/16 15:56, Stuart Yoder wrote:
> The existing iommu-map binding did not account for the situation where
> #iommu-cells == 2, as permitted in the ARM SMMU binding. The 2nd cell
> of the IOMMU specifier being the SMR mask. The existing binding defines
> the mapping as:
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Robin Murphy [mailto:robin.mur...@arm.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 10:50 AM
> To: Stuart Yoder ; Mark Rutland
> Cc: will.dea...@arm.com; robh...@kernel.org; Bharat Bhushan
> ; Nipun Gupta
> ; Diana Madalina Craciun ;
> devicet...@vger.kernel.org;
14 matches
Mail list logo
