Hi James,

Can we at least get the DT information required to load the driver (ideally in mainline so we can backport it and we get any upstream testing going)? It's obviously not terribly meaningful as testing goes but it's low effort and better than nothing.

Thanks,
Mark

On 19 January 2015 at 16:51, James King <James.King@arm.com> wrote:
Hi Mark,

In which case, the best we can request now is a back-port that builds.

I will be giving the kernel to developers of a display driver that want to use it and can test it out and provide any fixes required.

Thanks, James

-----Original Message-----
From: Will Deacon [mailto:will.deacon@arm.com]
Sent: 19 January 2015 16:48
To: James King
Cc: Mark Brown; alex.shi@linaro.org; linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org; Mark Hambleton; Roger Teague
Subject: Re: 3.10 LSK request

On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 04:38:04PM +0000, James King wrote:
> Any Juno board should be fine as that has a SMMUv1. Once in LSK, we
> can test it is still ok on a v2 part.
>
> Will – are there some tests (LTP?) that can be used to test it is
> working ok when back ported?

Nope; there are no in-tree users of the ARM SMMU, mainly due to lack of IOMMU-backed DMA ops for arm64 (patches are in review stage atm).

You could have a play with VFIO, but you'll need userspace support and working PCI for that.

Will


-- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium.  Thank you.

ARM Limited, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, Registered in England & Wales, Company No:  2557590
ARM Holdings plc, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, Registered in England & Wales, Company No:  2548782