From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joerg Roedel Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] iommu/io-pgtable-arm: Convert to IOMMU API TLB sync Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 14:27:26 +0200 Message-ID: <20170927122726.GM8398@8bytes.org> References: <20170922154322.GA27080@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170922154322.GA27080-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: iommu-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: iommu-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Will Deacon Cc: Magnus Damm , iommu-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, Laurent Pinchart , linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org List-Id: iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org Hi Will, Robin, On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 04:43:22PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > Joerg, do you reckon it's worth merging this as-is, or should we also > hook up add_flush before implementing this? The patches implement .iotlb_sync() so that it is okay to not have a .iotlb_range_add() call-back for now. But the patches lack a .flush_iotlb_range() call-back, which is strictly necessary for correctness because it is defined to be synchronous and doesn't require a sync-call afterwards. Regards, Joerg From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: joro@8bytes.org (Joerg Roedel) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 14:27:26 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] iommu/io-pgtable-arm: Convert to IOMMU API TLB sync In-Reply-To: <20170922154322.GA27080@arm.com> References: <20170922154322.GA27080@arm.com> Message-ID: <20170927122726.GM8398@8bytes.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Will, Robin, On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 04:43:22PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > Joerg, do you reckon it's worth merging this as-is, or should we also > hook up add_flush before implementing this? The patches implement .iotlb_sync() so that it is okay to not have a .iotlb_range_add() call-back for now. But the patches lack a .flush_iotlb_range() call-back, which is strictly necessary for correctness because it is defined to be synchronous and doesn't require a sync-call afterwards. Regards, Joerg