[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0608ca9b-083c-4929-a4e5-7d76b2590637@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2025 08:17:14 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Mukesh Ojha <mukesh.ojha@....qualcomm.com>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
<conor+dt@...nel.org>, Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 01/14] dt-bindings: remoteproc: qcom,pas: Add iommus
property
On 04/11/2025 08:35, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> Most Qualcomm platforms feature Gunyah hypervisor which handles IOMMU
I don't think that's true. Washn't Gunyah something new? Like since
SM8550? Look how many Qualcomm platforms we have in the arm/qcom.yaml
bindings - for sure most of them are not post SM8550.
> configuration for remote processor and when it is not present, the
> operating system must perform these configurations instead and for that
> firmware stream should be presented to the operating system. Hence, add
> iommus property as optional property for PAS supported devices.
So which platforms actually need to do this?
I really do not understand why you are adding this to SDX55 and several
others.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists