All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
To: Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
	Jordan Crouse <jcrouse@codeaurora.org>,
	Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>,
	Akhil P Oommen <akhilpo@codeaurora.org>,
	iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 2/2] iommu/arm-smmu-qcom: Move the adreno smmu specific impl earlier
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 11:24:52 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YDku5PFQZetP4iG8@builder.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c607d71eb0fe507c8b83cc0ea9b393777f22149a.1614332994.git.saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org>

On Fri 26 Feb 03:55 CST 2021, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:

> Adreno(GPU) SMMU and APSS(Application Processor SubSystem) SMMU
> both implement "arm,mmu-500" in some QTI SoCs and to run through
> adreno smmu specific implementation such as enabling split pagetables
> support, we need to match the "qcom,adreno-smmu" compatible first
> before apss smmu or else we will be running apps smmu implementation
> for adreno smmu and the additional features for adreno smmu is never
> set. For ex: we have "qcom,sc7280-smmu-500" compatible for both apps
> and adreno smmu implementing "arm,mmu-500", so the adreno smmu
> implementation is never reached because the current sequence checks
> for apps smmu compatible(qcom,sc7280-smmu-500) first and runs that
> specific impl and we never reach adreno smmu specific implementation.
> 

So you're saying that you have a single SMMU instance that's compatible
with both an entry in qcom_smmu_impl_of_match[] and "qcom,adreno-smmu"?

Per your proposed change we will pick the adreno ops _only_ for this
component, essentially disabling the non-Adreno quirks selected by the
qcom impl. As such keeping the non-adreno compatible in the
qcom_smmu_impl_init[] seems to only serve to obfuscate the situation.

Don't we somehow need the combined set of quirks? (At least if we're
running this with a standard UEFI based boot flow?)

Regards,
Bjorn

> Suggested-by: Akhil P Oommen <akhilpo@codeaurora.org>
> Signed-off-by: Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org>
> ---
>  drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c | 12 +++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c
> index bea3ee0dabc2..03f048aebb80 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c
> @@ -345,11 +345,17 @@ struct arm_smmu_device *qcom_smmu_impl_init(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>  {
>  	const struct device_node *np = smmu->dev->of_node;
>  
> -	if (of_match_node(qcom_smmu_impl_of_match, np))
> -		return qcom_smmu_create(smmu, &qcom_smmu_impl);
> -
> +	/*
> +	 * Do not change this order of implementation, i.e., first adreno
> +	 * smmu impl and then apss smmu since we can have both implementing
> +	 * arm,mmu-500 in which case we will miss setting adreno smmu specific
> +	 * features if the order is changed.
> +	 */
>  	if (of_device_is_compatible(np, "qcom,adreno-smmu"))
>  		return qcom_smmu_create(smmu, &qcom_adreno_smmu_impl);
>  
> +	if (of_match_node(qcom_smmu_impl_of_match, np))
> +		return qcom_smmu_create(smmu, &qcom_smmu_impl);
> +
>  	return smmu;
>  }
> -- 
> QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
> of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
> 

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
To: Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Akhil P Oommen <akhilpo@codeaurora.org>,
	iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Jordan Crouse <jcrouse@codeaurora.org>,
	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 2/2] iommu/arm-smmu-qcom: Move the adreno smmu specific impl earlier
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 11:24:52 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YDku5PFQZetP4iG8@builder.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c607d71eb0fe507c8b83cc0ea9b393777f22149a.1614332994.git.saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org>

On Fri 26 Feb 03:55 CST 2021, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:

> Adreno(GPU) SMMU and APSS(Application Processor SubSystem) SMMU
> both implement "arm,mmu-500" in some QTI SoCs and to run through
> adreno smmu specific implementation such as enabling split pagetables
> support, we need to match the "qcom,adreno-smmu" compatible first
> before apss smmu or else we will be running apps smmu implementation
> for adreno smmu and the additional features for adreno smmu is never
> set. For ex: we have "qcom,sc7280-smmu-500" compatible for both apps
> and adreno smmu implementing "arm,mmu-500", so the adreno smmu
> implementation is never reached because the current sequence checks
> for apps smmu compatible(qcom,sc7280-smmu-500) first and runs that
> specific impl and we never reach adreno smmu specific implementation.
> 

So you're saying that you have a single SMMU instance that's compatible
with both an entry in qcom_smmu_impl_of_match[] and "qcom,adreno-smmu"?

Per your proposed change we will pick the adreno ops _only_ for this
component, essentially disabling the non-Adreno quirks selected by the
qcom impl. As such keeping the non-adreno compatible in the
qcom_smmu_impl_init[] seems to only serve to obfuscate the situation.

Don't we somehow need the combined set of quirks? (At least if we're
running this with a standard UEFI based boot flow?)

Regards,
Bjorn

> Suggested-by: Akhil P Oommen <akhilpo@codeaurora.org>
> Signed-off-by: Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org>
> ---
>  drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c | 12 +++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c
> index bea3ee0dabc2..03f048aebb80 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c
> @@ -345,11 +345,17 @@ struct arm_smmu_device *qcom_smmu_impl_init(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>  {
>  	const struct device_node *np = smmu->dev->of_node;
>  
> -	if (of_match_node(qcom_smmu_impl_of_match, np))
> -		return qcom_smmu_create(smmu, &qcom_smmu_impl);
> -
> +	/*
> +	 * Do not change this order of implementation, i.e., first adreno
> +	 * smmu impl and then apss smmu since we can have both implementing
> +	 * arm,mmu-500 in which case we will miss setting adreno smmu specific
> +	 * features if the order is changed.
> +	 */
>  	if (of_device_is_compatible(np, "qcom,adreno-smmu"))
>  		return qcom_smmu_create(smmu, &qcom_adreno_smmu_impl);
>  
> +	if (of_match_node(qcom_smmu_impl_of_match, np))
> +		return qcom_smmu_create(smmu, &qcom_smmu_impl);
> +
>  	return smmu;
>  }
> -- 
> QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
> of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
> 
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
To: Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
	Akhil P Oommen <akhilpo@codeaurora.org>,
	iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Jordan Crouse <jcrouse@codeaurora.org>,
	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 2/2] iommu/arm-smmu-qcom: Move the adreno smmu specific impl earlier
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 11:24:52 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YDku5PFQZetP4iG8@builder.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c607d71eb0fe507c8b83cc0ea9b393777f22149a.1614332994.git.saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org>

On Fri 26 Feb 03:55 CST 2021, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:

> Adreno(GPU) SMMU and APSS(Application Processor SubSystem) SMMU
> both implement "arm,mmu-500" in some QTI SoCs and to run through
> adreno smmu specific implementation such as enabling split pagetables
> support, we need to match the "qcom,adreno-smmu" compatible first
> before apss smmu or else we will be running apps smmu implementation
> for adreno smmu and the additional features for adreno smmu is never
> set. For ex: we have "qcom,sc7280-smmu-500" compatible for both apps
> and adreno smmu implementing "arm,mmu-500", so the adreno smmu
> implementation is never reached because the current sequence checks
> for apps smmu compatible(qcom,sc7280-smmu-500) first and runs that
> specific impl and we never reach adreno smmu specific implementation.
> 

So you're saying that you have a single SMMU instance that's compatible
with both an entry in qcom_smmu_impl_of_match[] and "qcom,adreno-smmu"?

Per your proposed change we will pick the adreno ops _only_ for this
component, essentially disabling the non-Adreno quirks selected by the
qcom impl. As such keeping the non-adreno compatible in the
qcom_smmu_impl_init[] seems to only serve to obfuscate the situation.

Don't we somehow need the combined set of quirks? (At least if we're
running this with a standard UEFI based boot flow?)

Regards,
Bjorn

> Suggested-by: Akhil P Oommen <akhilpo@codeaurora.org>
> Signed-off-by: Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org>
> ---
>  drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c | 12 +++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c
> index bea3ee0dabc2..03f048aebb80 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c
> @@ -345,11 +345,17 @@ struct arm_smmu_device *qcom_smmu_impl_init(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>  {
>  	const struct device_node *np = smmu->dev->of_node;
>  
> -	if (of_match_node(qcom_smmu_impl_of_match, np))
> -		return qcom_smmu_create(smmu, &qcom_smmu_impl);
> -
> +	/*
> +	 * Do not change this order of implementation, i.e., first adreno
> +	 * smmu impl and then apss smmu since we can have both implementing
> +	 * arm,mmu-500 in which case we will miss setting adreno smmu specific
> +	 * features if the order is changed.
> +	 */
>  	if (of_device_is_compatible(np, "qcom,adreno-smmu"))
>  		return qcom_smmu_create(smmu, &qcom_adreno_smmu_impl);
>  
> +	if (of_match_node(qcom_smmu_impl_of_match, np))
> +		return qcom_smmu_create(smmu, &qcom_smmu_impl);
> +
>  	return smmu;
>  }
> -- 
> QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
> of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
> 

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

  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-02-26 17:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-02-26  9:55 [PATCHv2 0/2] iommu/arm-smmu-qcom: Add SC7280 support Sai Prakash Ranjan
2021-02-26  9:55 ` Sai Prakash Ranjan
2021-02-26  9:55 ` [PATCHv2 1/2] iommu/arm-smmu-qcom: Add SC7280 SMMU compatible Sai Prakash Ranjan
2021-02-26  9:55   ` Sai Prakash Ranjan
2021-02-26  9:55 ` [PATCHv2 2/2] iommu/arm-smmu-qcom: Move the adreno smmu specific impl earlier Sai Prakash Ranjan
2021-02-26  9:55   ` Sai Prakash Ranjan
2021-02-26 15:51   ` Jordan Crouse
2021-02-26 15:51     ` Jordan Crouse
2021-02-26 15:51     ` Jordan Crouse
2021-02-26 17:24   ` Bjorn Andersson [this message]
2021-02-26 17:24     ` Bjorn Andersson
2021-02-26 17:24     ` Bjorn Andersson
2021-02-26 18:23     ` Rob Clark
2021-02-26 18:23       ` Rob Clark
2021-02-26 18:23       ` Rob Clark
2021-02-26 19:14       ` Bjorn Andersson
2021-02-26 19:14         ` Bjorn Andersson
2021-02-26 19:14         ` Bjorn Andersson
2021-02-27 13:53         ` Sai Prakash Ranjan
2021-02-27 13:53           ` Sai Prakash Ranjan
2021-03-11 23:29           ` Bjorn Andersson
2021-03-11 23:29             ` Bjorn Andersson
2021-03-11 23:29             ` Bjorn Andersson
2021-03-14 19:01             ` Sai Prakash Ranjan
2021-03-14 19:01               ` Sai Prakash Ranjan
2021-03-25  7:40               ` Sai Prakash Ranjan
2021-03-25  7:40                 ` Sai Prakash Ranjan
2021-03-25 15:05                 ` Will Deacon
2021-03-25 15:05                   ` Will Deacon
2021-03-25 15:05                   ` Will Deacon
2021-04-05  8:42                   ` Sai Prakash Ranjan
2021-04-05  8:42                     ` Sai Prakash Ranjan
2021-04-19  3:11                     ` Sai Prakash Ranjan
2021-04-19  3:11                       ` Sai Prakash Ranjan
2021-02-26 18:48     ` Jordan Crouse
2021-02-26 18:48       ` Jordan Crouse
2021-02-26 18:48       ` Jordan Crouse
2021-02-26 19:54       ` Jordan Crouse
2021-02-26 19:54         ` Jordan Crouse
2021-02-26 19:54         ` Jordan Crouse
2021-04-19 14:38   ` Bjorn Andersson
2021-04-19 14:38     ` Bjorn Andersson
2021-04-19 14:38     ` Bjorn Andersson
2021-04-20  6:06     ` Sai Prakash Ranjan
2021-04-20  6:06       ` Sai Prakash Ranjan

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=YDku5PFQZetP4iG8@builder.lan \
    --to=bjorn.andersson@linaro.org \
    --cc=akhilpo@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=jcrouse@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=joro@8bytes.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=robdclark@gmail.com \
    --cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
    --cc=saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.