[PATCH v2] drm/panthor: Simplify mmu_hw_do_operation_locked

[PATCH v2] drm/panthor: Simplify mmu_hw_do_operation_locked

[Steven Price]

The only callers to mmu_hw_do_operation_locked() pass an 'op' of either
AS_COMAND_FLUSH_MEM or AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_PT. This means the code paths
after that are dead. Removing those paths means the
mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl() function might has well be inlined.

Simplify everything by having a switch statement for the type of 'op'
(warning if we get an unexpected value) and removing the dead cases.

Suggested-by: Daniel Stone <daniel@fooishbar.org>
Signed-off-by: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>
---
Changes from v1:
 * As well as removing dead code, inline mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl

 drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c | 57 ++++++++++++---------------
 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c
index 367c89aca558..9d77e7c16ed2 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c
@@ -569,15 +569,37 @@ static void lock_region(struct panthor_device *ptdev, u32 as_nr,
 	write_cmd(ptdev, as_nr, AS_COMMAND_LOCK);
 }
 
-static int mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl(struct panthor_device *ptdev, int as_nr,
-				       u32 op)
+static int mmu_hw_do_operation_locked(struct panthor_device *ptdev, int as_nr,
+				      u64 iova, u64 size, u32 op)
 {
 	const u32 l2_flush_op = CACHE_CLEAN | CACHE_INV;
-	u32 lsc_flush_op = 0;
+	u32 lsc_flush_op;
 	int ret;
 
-	if (op == AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_MEM)
+	lockdep_assert_held(&ptdev->mmu->as.slots_lock);
+
+	switch (op) {
+	case AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_MEM:
 		lsc_flush_op = CACHE_CLEAN | CACHE_INV;
+		break;
+	case AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_PT:
+		lsc_flush_op = 0;
+		break;
+	default:
+		drm_WARN(&ptdev->base, 1, "Unexpected AS_COMMAND: %d", op);
+		return -EINVAL;
+	}
+
+	if (as_nr < 0)
+		return 0;
+
+	/*
+	 * If the AS number is greater than zero, then we can be sure
+	 * the device is up and running, so we don't need to explicitly
+	 * power it up
+	 */
+
+	lock_region(ptdev, as_nr, iova, size);
 
 	ret = wait_ready(ptdev, as_nr);
 	if (ret)
@@ -598,33 +620,6 @@ static int mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl(struct panthor_device *ptdev, int as_nr,
 	return wait_ready(ptdev, as_nr);
 }
 
-static int mmu_hw_do_operation_locked(struct panthor_device *ptdev, int as_nr,
-				      u64 iova, u64 size, u32 op)
-{
-	lockdep_assert_held(&ptdev->mmu->as.slots_lock);
-
-	if (as_nr < 0)
-		return 0;
-
-	/*
-	 * If the AS number is greater than zero, then we can be sure
-	 * the device is up and running, so we don't need to explicitly
-	 * power it up
-	 */
-
-	if (op != AS_COMMAND_UNLOCK)
-		lock_region(ptdev, as_nr, iova, size);
-
-	if (op == AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_MEM || op == AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_PT)
-		return mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl(ptdev, as_nr, op);
-
-	/* Run the MMU operation */
-	write_cmd(ptdev, as_nr, op);
-
-	/* Wait for the flush to complete */
-	return wait_ready(ptdev, as_nr);
-}
-
 static int mmu_hw_do_operation(struct panthor_vm *vm,
 			       u64 iova, u64 size, u32 op)
 {
-- 
2.39.5

Re: [PATCH v2] drm/panthor: Simplify mmu_hw_do_operation_locked

[Karunika Choo]

On 15/08/2025 14:42, Steven Price wrote:
> The only callers to mmu_hw_do_operation_locked() pass an 'op' of either
> AS_COMAND_FLUSH_MEM or AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_PT. This means the code paths
> after that are dead. Removing those paths means the
> mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl() function might has well be inlined.
> 
> Simplify everything by having a switch statement for the type of 'op'
> (warning if we get an unexpected value) and removing the dead cases.
> 
> Suggested-by: Daniel Stone <daniel@fooishbar.org>
> Signed-off-by: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>
> ---
> Changes from v1:
>  * As well as removing dead code, inline mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl
> 
>  drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c | 57 ++++++++++++---------------
>  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c
> index 367c89aca558..9d77e7c16ed2 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c
> @@ -569,15 +569,37 @@ static void lock_region(struct panthor_device *ptdev, u32 as_nr,
>  	write_cmd(ptdev, as_nr, AS_COMMAND_LOCK);
>  }
>  
> -static int mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl(struct panthor_device *ptdev, int as_nr,
> -				       u32 op)
> +static int mmu_hw_do_operation_locked(struct panthor_device *ptdev, int as_nr,
> +				      u64 iova, u64 size, u32 op)
>  {
>  	const u32 l2_flush_op = CACHE_CLEAN | CACHE_INV;
> -	u32 lsc_flush_op = 0;
> +	u32 lsc_flush_op;
>  	int ret;
>  
> -	if (op == AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_MEM)
> +	lockdep_assert_held(&ptdev->mmu->as.slots_lock);
> +
> +	switch (op) {
> +	case AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_MEM:
>  		lsc_flush_op = CACHE_CLEAN | CACHE_INV;
> +		break;
> +	case AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_PT:
> +		lsc_flush_op = 0;
> +		break;
> +	default:
> +		drm_WARN(&ptdev->base, 1, "Unexpected AS_COMMAND: %d", op);
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (as_nr < 0)
> +		return 0;
> +

Hi Steve,

Thanks for pushing this patch. I was planning to address Daniel's
comment next week.

One small nit, would it be better to move the (as_nr < 0) check just
after the lockdep_assert_held() (above the switch case)?

Looks good to me otherwise.

Kind regards,
Karunika

> +	/*
> +	 * If the AS number is greater than zero, then we can be sure
> +	 * the device is up and running, so we don't need to explicitly
> +	 * power it up
> +	 */
> +
> +	lock_region(ptdev, as_nr, iova, size);
>  
>  	ret = wait_ready(ptdev, as_nr);
>  	if (ret)
> @@ -598,33 +620,6 @@ static int mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl(struct panthor_device *ptdev, int as_nr,
>  	return wait_ready(ptdev, as_nr);
>  }
>  
> -static int mmu_hw_do_operation_locked(struct panthor_device *ptdev, int as_nr,
> -				      u64 iova, u64 size, u32 op)
> -{
> -	lockdep_assert_held(&ptdev->mmu->as.slots_lock);
> -
> -	if (as_nr < 0)
> -		return 0;
> -
> -	/*
> -	 * If the AS number is greater than zero, then we can be sure
> -	 * the device is up and running, so we don't need to explicitly
> -	 * power it up
> -	 */
> -
> -	if (op != AS_COMMAND_UNLOCK)
> -		lock_region(ptdev, as_nr, iova, size);
> -
> -	if (op == AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_MEM || op == AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_PT)
> -		return mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl(ptdev, as_nr, op);
> -
> -	/* Run the MMU operation */
> -	write_cmd(ptdev, as_nr, op);
> -
> -	/* Wait for the flush to complete */
> -	return wait_ready(ptdev, as_nr);
> -}
> -
>  static int mmu_hw_do_operation(struct panthor_vm *vm,
>  			       u64 iova, u64 size, u32 op)
>  {

Re: [PATCH v2] drm/panthor: Simplify mmu_hw_do_operation_locked

[Steven Price]

On 15/08/2025 15:01, Karunika Choo wrote:
> On 15/08/2025 14:42, Steven Price wrote:
>> The only callers to mmu_hw_do_operation_locked() pass an 'op' of either
>> AS_COMAND_FLUSH_MEM or AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_PT. This means the code paths
>> after that are dead. Removing those paths means the
>> mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl() function might has well be inlined.
>>
>> Simplify everything by having a switch statement for the type of 'op'
>> (warning if we get an unexpected value) and removing the dead cases.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Daniel Stone <daniel@fooishbar.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>
>> ---
>> Changes from v1:
>>  * As well as removing dead code, inline mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl
>>
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c | 57 ++++++++++++---------------
>>  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c
>> index 367c89aca558..9d77e7c16ed2 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c
>> @@ -569,15 +569,37 @@ static void lock_region(struct panthor_device *ptdev, u32 as_nr,
>>  	write_cmd(ptdev, as_nr, AS_COMMAND_LOCK);
>>  }
>>  
>> -static int mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl(struct panthor_device *ptdev, int as_nr,
>> -				       u32 op)
>> +static int mmu_hw_do_operation_locked(struct panthor_device *ptdev, int as_nr,
>> +				      u64 iova, u64 size, u32 op)
>>  {
>>  	const u32 l2_flush_op = CACHE_CLEAN | CACHE_INV;
>> -	u32 lsc_flush_op = 0;
>> +	u32 lsc_flush_op;
>>  	int ret;
>>  
>> -	if (op == AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_MEM)
>> +	lockdep_assert_held(&ptdev->mmu->as.slots_lock);
>> +
>> +	switch (op) {
>> +	case AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_MEM:
>>  		lsc_flush_op = CACHE_CLEAN | CACHE_INV;
>> +		break;
>> +	case AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_PT:
>> +		lsc_flush_op = 0;
>> +		break;
>> +	default:
>> +		drm_WARN(&ptdev->base, 1, "Unexpected AS_COMMAND: %d", op);
>> +		return -EINVAL;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	if (as_nr < 0)
>> +		return 0;
>> +
> 
> Hi Steve,
> 
> Thanks for pushing this patch. I was planning to address Daniel's
> comment next week.
> 
> One small nit, would it be better to move the (as_nr < 0) check just
> after the lockdep_assert_held() (above the switch case)?

I'm not sure it makes much difference, but there was a minor reason for
my ordering:

By having it after the switch statement then if someone adds a call with
an invalid op value it will always fail (with a warning). Whereas if we
move the (as_nr < 0) check earlier then there's a chance they won't
notice if their testing doesn't trigger that case.

Obviously there might be a (theoretical) performance impact, but I don't
think the one extra check would be noticeable - this isn't exactly a
major fast path. Is there something else I've missed which would justify
switching it around?

Thanks,
Steve

> Looks good to me otherwise.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Karunika
> 
>> +	/*
>> +	 * If the AS number is greater than zero, then we can be sure
>> +	 * the device is up and running, so we don't need to explicitly
>> +	 * power it up
>> +	 */
>> +
>> +	lock_region(ptdev, as_nr, iova, size);
>>  
>>  	ret = wait_ready(ptdev, as_nr);
>>  	if (ret)
>> @@ -598,33 +620,6 @@ static int mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl(struct panthor_device *ptdev, int as_nr,
>>  	return wait_ready(ptdev, as_nr);
>>  }
>>  
>> -static int mmu_hw_do_operation_locked(struct panthor_device *ptdev, int as_nr,
>> -				      u64 iova, u64 size, u32 op)
>> -{
>> -	lockdep_assert_held(&ptdev->mmu->as.slots_lock);
>> -
>> -	if (as_nr < 0)
>> -		return 0;
>> -
>> -	/*
>> -	 * If the AS number is greater than zero, then we can be sure
>> -	 * the device is up and running, so we don't need to explicitly
>> -	 * power it up
>> -	 */
>> -
>> -	if (op != AS_COMMAND_UNLOCK)
>> -		lock_region(ptdev, as_nr, iova, size);
>> -
>> -	if (op == AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_MEM || op == AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_PT)
>> -		return mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl(ptdev, as_nr, op);
>> -
>> -	/* Run the MMU operation */
>> -	write_cmd(ptdev, as_nr, op);
>> -
>> -	/* Wait for the flush to complete */
>> -	return wait_ready(ptdev, as_nr);
>> -}
>> -
>>  static int mmu_hw_do_operation(struct panthor_vm *vm,
>>  			       u64 iova, u64 size, u32 op)
>>  {
> 

Re: [PATCH v2] drm/panthor: Simplify mmu_hw_do_operation_locked

[Karunika Choo]

On 15/08/2025 15:10, Steven Price wrote:
> On 15/08/2025 15:01, Karunika Choo wrote:
>> On 15/08/2025 14:42, Steven Price wrote:
>>> The only callers to mmu_hw_do_operation_locked() pass an 'op' of either
>>> AS_COMAND_FLUSH_MEM or AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_PT. This means the code paths
>>> after that are dead. Removing those paths means the
>>> mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl() function might has well be inlined.
>>>
>>> Simplify everything by having a switch statement for the type of 'op'
>>> (warning if we get an unexpected value) and removing the dead cases.
>>>
>>> Suggested-by: Daniel Stone <daniel@fooishbar.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>
>>> ---
>>> Changes from v1:
>>>  * As well as removing dead code, inline mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl
>>>
>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c | 57 ++++++++++++---------------
>>>  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c
>>> index 367c89aca558..9d77e7c16ed2 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c
>>> @@ -569,15 +569,37 @@ static void lock_region(struct panthor_device *ptdev, u32 as_nr,
>>>  	write_cmd(ptdev, as_nr, AS_COMMAND_LOCK);
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> -static int mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl(struct panthor_device *ptdev, int as_nr,
>>> -				       u32 op)
>>> +static int mmu_hw_do_operation_locked(struct panthor_device *ptdev, int as_nr,
>>> +				      u64 iova, u64 size, u32 op)
>>>  {
>>>  	const u32 l2_flush_op = CACHE_CLEAN | CACHE_INV;
>>> -	u32 lsc_flush_op = 0;
>>> +	u32 lsc_flush_op;
>>>  	int ret;
>>>  
>>> -	if (op == AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_MEM)
>>> +	lockdep_assert_held(&ptdev->mmu->as.slots_lock);
>>> +
>>> +	switch (op) {
>>> +	case AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_MEM:
>>>  		lsc_flush_op = CACHE_CLEAN | CACHE_INV;
>>> +		break;
>>> +	case AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_PT:
>>> +		lsc_flush_op = 0;
>>> +		break;
>>> +	default:
>>> +		drm_WARN(&ptdev->base, 1, "Unexpected AS_COMMAND: %d", op);
>>> +		return -EINVAL;
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>> +	if (as_nr < 0)
>>> +		return 0;
>>> +
>>
>> Hi Steve,
>>
>> Thanks for pushing this patch. I was planning to address Daniel's
>> comment next week.
>>
>> One small nit, would it be better to move the (as_nr < 0) check just
>> after the lockdep_assert_held() (above the switch case)?
> 
> I'm not sure it makes much difference, but there was a minor reason for
> my ordering:
> 
> By having it after the switch statement then if someone adds a call with
> an invalid op value it will always fail (with a warning). Whereas if we
> move the (as_nr < 0) check earlier then there's a chance they won't
> notice if their testing doesn't trigger that case.
> 
> Obviously there might be a (theoretical) performance impact, but I don't
> think the one extra check would be noticeable - this isn't exactly a
> major fast path. Is there something else I've missed which would justify
> switching it around?
> 

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the explanation. I agree it would be better to have the
switch case first to check for an invalid op. LGTM.

Reviewed-by: Karunika Choo <karunika.choo@arm.com>

Kind regards,
Karunika

> Thanks,
> Steve
> 
>> Looks good to me otherwise.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Karunika
>>
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * If the AS number is greater than zero, then we can be sure
>>> +	 * the device is up and running, so we don't need to explicitly
>>> +	 * power it up
>>> +	 */
>>> +
>>> +	lock_region(ptdev, as_nr, iova, size);
>>>  
>>>  	ret = wait_ready(ptdev, as_nr);
>>>  	if (ret)
>>> @@ -598,33 +620,6 @@ static int mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl(struct panthor_device *ptdev, int as_nr,
>>>  	return wait_ready(ptdev, as_nr);
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> -static int mmu_hw_do_operation_locked(struct panthor_device *ptdev, int as_nr,
>>> -				      u64 iova, u64 size, u32 op)
>>> -{
>>> -	lockdep_assert_held(&ptdev->mmu->as.slots_lock);
>>> -
>>> -	if (as_nr < 0)
>>> -		return 0;
>>> -
>>> -	/*
>>> -	 * If the AS number is greater than zero, then we can be sure
>>> -	 * the device is up and running, so we don't need to explicitly
>>> -	 * power it up
>>> -	 */
>>> -
>>> -	if (op != AS_COMMAND_UNLOCK)
>>> -		lock_region(ptdev, as_nr, iova, size);
>>> -
>>> -	if (op == AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_MEM || op == AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_PT)
>>> -		return mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl(ptdev, as_nr, op);
>>> -
>>> -	/* Run the MMU operation */
>>> -	write_cmd(ptdev, as_nr, op);
>>> -
>>> -	/* Wait for the flush to complete */
>>> -	return wait_ready(ptdev, as_nr);
>>> -}
>>> -
>>>  static int mmu_hw_do_operation(struct panthor_vm *vm,
>>>  			       u64 iova, u64 size, u32 op)
>>>  {
>>
> 

Re: [PATCH v2] drm/panthor: Simplify mmu_hw_do_operation_locked

[Steven Price]

On 15/08/2025 14:42, Steven Price wrote:
> The only callers to mmu_hw_do_operation_locked() pass an 'op' of either
> AS_COMAND_FLUSH_MEM or AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_PT. This means the code paths
> after that are dead. Removing those paths means the
> mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl() function might has well be inlined.
> 
> Simplify everything by having a switch statement for the type of 'op'
> (warning if we get an unexpected value) and removing the dead cases.
> 
> Suggested-by: Daniel Stone <daniel@fooishbar.org>
> Signed-off-by: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>

Applied to drm-misc-next.

Thanks,
Steve

> ---
> Changes from v1:
>  * As well as removing dead code, inline mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl
> 
>  drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c | 57 ++++++++++++---------------
>  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c
> index 367c89aca558..9d77e7c16ed2 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c
> @@ -569,15 +569,37 @@ static void lock_region(struct panthor_device *ptdev, u32 as_nr,
>  	write_cmd(ptdev, as_nr, AS_COMMAND_LOCK);
>  }
>  
> -static int mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl(struct panthor_device *ptdev, int as_nr,
> -				       u32 op)
> +static int mmu_hw_do_operation_locked(struct panthor_device *ptdev, int as_nr,
> +				      u64 iova, u64 size, u32 op)
>  {
>  	const u32 l2_flush_op = CACHE_CLEAN | CACHE_INV;
> -	u32 lsc_flush_op = 0;
> +	u32 lsc_flush_op;
>  	int ret;
>  
> -	if (op == AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_MEM)
> +	lockdep_assert_held(&ptdev->mmu->as.slots_lock);
> +
> +	switch (op) {
> +	case AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_MEM:
>  		lsc_flush_op = CACHE_CLEAN | CACHE_INV;
> +		break;
> +	case AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_PT:
> +		lsc_flush_op = 0;
> +		break;
> +	default:
> +		drm_WARN(&ptdev->base, 1, "Unexpected AS_COMMAND: %d", op);
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (as_nr < 0)
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * If the AS number is greater than zero, then we can be sure
> +	 * the device is up and running, so we don't need to explicitly
> +	 * power it up
> +	 */
> +
> +	lock_region(ptdev, as_nr, iova, size);
>  
>  	ret = wait_ready(ptdev, as_nr);
>  	if (ret)
> @@ -598,33 +620,6 @@ static int mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl(struct panthor_device *ptdev, int as_nr,
>  	return wait_ready(ptdev, as_nr);
>  }
>  
> -static int mmu_hw_do_operation_locked(struct panthor_device *ptdev, int as_nr,
> -				      u64 iova, u64 size, u32 op)
> -{
> -	lockdep_assert_held(&ptdev->mmu->as.slots_lock);
> -
> -	if (as_nr < 0)
> -		return 0;
> -
> -	/*
> -	 * If the AS number is greater than zero, then we can be sure
> -	 * the device is up and running, so we don't need to explicitly
> -	 * power it up
> -	 */
> -
> -	if (op != AS_COMMAND_UNLOCK)
> -		lock_region(ptdev, as_nr, iova, size);
> -
> -	if (op == AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_MEM || op == AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_PT)
> -		return mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl(ptdev, as_nr, op);
> -
> -	/* Run the MMU operation */
> -	write_cmd(ptdev, as_nr, op);
> -
> -	/* Wait for the flush to complete */
> -	return wait_ready(ptdev, as_nr);
> -}
> -
>  static int mmu_hw_do_operation(struct panthor_vm *vm,
>  			       u64 iova, u64 size, u32 op)
>  {