From: laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com (Laurent Pinchart)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v3 18/19] iommu: exynos: init from dt-specific callback instead of initcall
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 14:07:11 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <24892200.rsOlz53AM6@avalon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1681211.YVY9bd22gV@wuerfel>
Hi Arnd,
On Tuesday 16 December 2014 12:40:28 Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 15 December 2014 18:13:23 Will Deacon wrote:
> >>>> IOMMUs are not as low-level as system interrupt controllers or
> >>>> system clocks. I'm beginning to agree with Thierry that they should
> >>>> be treated as normal platform devices as they're not required
> >>>> earlier than probe time of their bus master devices.
> >>>
> >>> Well, I think you'd have to propose patches for discussion since I'm
> >>> certainly not wed to the current approach; I just want something that
> >>> allows of_{dma,iommu}_configure to run with the information it needs.
> >>
> >> Do we need of_dma_configure() to run when the device is created, or
> >> could we postpone it to just before probe time ?
> >
> > I'm not sure I can answer that one... Arnd?
>
> I believe we could postpone it to probe time, but I'd rather not.
> The way I see the arguments in favor, we have mainly cosmetic arguments:
>
> - Doing it at probe time would eliminate the ugly section magic hack
> - iommu drivers could be implemented as loadable modules with platform
> drivers, for consistency with most other drivers
The main argument, from my point of view, is that handling IOMMUs are normal
platform devices allow using all the kernel infrastructure that depends on a
struct device. The dev_* print helpers are nice to have, but what would make a
big difference is the ability to use runtime PM.
> On the other hand, I see:
>
> - DMA configuration is traditionally done at device creation time, and
> changing that is more likely to introduce bugs than leaving it
> where it is.
> - On a lot of machines, the IOMMU is optional, and the probe function
> cannot know the difference between an IOMMU driver that is left out
> of the kernel and one that will be initialized later, using a fixed
> entry point for initializing the IOMMU makes the behavior consistent
I'm not advocating for IOMMU support being built as a loadable module. It
might be nice from a development point of view, but that's about it.
> There is a third option in theory, which is to only enable the IOMMU
> as part of dma_set_mask(). I've done that in the past on powerpc, but
> the new approach seems cleaner.
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-12-16 12:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 63+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-11-19 11:15 [PATCH v3 00/19] Exynos SYSMMU (IOMMU) integration with DT and DMA-mapping subsystem Marek Szyprowski
2014-11-19 11:15 ` [PATCH v3 01/19] iommu: fix const qualifier in of_iommu_set_ops Marek Szyprowski
2014-11-19 11:15 ` [PATCH v3 02/19] iommu: fix initialization without 'add_device' callback Marek Szyprowski
2014-11-19 11:15 ` [PATCH v3 03/19] arm: dma-mapping: add missing check for iommu Marek Szyprowski
2014-11-19 11:15 ` [PATCH v3 04/19] drm: exynos: detach from default dma-mapping domain on init Marek Szyprowski
2014-11-19 11:15 ` [PATCH v3 05/19] arm: exynos: pm_domains: add support for devices registered before arch_initcall Marek Szyprowski
2014-11-19 11:15 ` [PATCH v3 06/19] ARM: dts: exynos4: add sysmmu nodes Marek Szyprowski
2014-11-19 11:15 ` [PATCH v3 07/19] iommu: exynos: don't read version register on every tlb operation Marek Szyprowski
2014-11-19 11:15 ` [PATCH v3 08/19] iommu: exynos: remove unused functions Marek Szyprowski
2014-11-19 11:15 ` [PATCH v3 09/19] iommu: exynos: remove useless spinlock Marek Szyprowski
2014-11-19 11:15 ` [PATCH v3 10/19] iommu: exynos: refactor function parameters to simplify code Marek Szyprowski
2014-11-19 11:15 ` [PATCH v3 11/19] iommu: exynos: remove unused functions, part 2 Marek Szyprowski
2014-11-19 11:15 ` [PATCH v3 12/19] iommu: exynos: remove useless device_add/remove callbacks Marek Szyprowski
2014-11-19 11:15 ` [PATCH v3 13/19] iommu: exynos: add support for binding more than one sysmmu to master device Marek Szyprowski
2014-11-19 11:15 ` [PATCH v3 14/19] iommu: exynos: add support for runtime_pm Marek Szyprowski
2014-11-19 11:15 ` [PATCH v3 15/19] iommu: exynos: rename variables to reflect their purpose Marek Szyprowski
2014-11-19 11:15 ` [PATCH v3 16/19] iommu: exynos: document internal structures Marek Szyprowski
2014-11-19 11:15 ` [PATCH v3 17/19] iommu: exynos: remove excessive includes and sort others alphabetically Marek Szyprowski
2014-11-19 11:15 ` [PATCH v3 18/19] iommu: exynos: init from dt-specific callback instead of initcall Marek Szyprowski
2014-12-14 12:45 ` Laurent Pinchart
2014-12-15 9:47 ` Thierry Reding
2014-12-15 17:17 ` Will Deacon
2014-12-15 17:27 ` Laurent Pinchart
2014-12-15 17:43 ` Will Deacon
2014-12-15 17:53 ` Laurent Pinchart
2014-12-15 18:13 ` Will Deacon
2014-12-15 18:19 ` Laurent Pinchart
2014-12-16 10:58 ` Marek Szyprowski
2014-12-16 11:40 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-12-16 12:07 ` Laurent Pinchart [this message]
2014-12-16 12:10 ` [Linaro-mm-sig] " Arnd Bergmann
2014-12-16 23:24 ` Laurent Pinchart
2014-12-17 14:27 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-12-17 14:39 ` Laurent Pinchart
2014-12-17 15:41 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-12-17 16:02 ` Laurent Pinchart
2014-12-17 21:58 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-12-17 22:38 ` Laurent Pinchart
2014-12-17 14:53 ` Lucas Stach
2014-12-17 15:56 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-12-18 20:36 ` Laurent Pinchart
2014-12-18 23:21 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-11-19 11:15 ` [PATCH v3 19/19] iommu: exynos: add callback for initializing devices from device tree Marek Szyprowski
2014-12-02 9:59 ` [PATCH v3 00/19] Exynos SYSMMU (IOMMU) integration with DT and DMA-mapping subsystem Sjoerd Simons
2014-12-05 10:22 ` Marek Szyprowski
2015-01-06 9:49 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2015-01-07 2:03 ` Joonyoung Shim
2015-01-07 9:33 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2015-01-07 9:55 ` Joonyoung Shim
2015-01-08 16:42 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2015-01-12 6:40 ` Joonyoung Shim
2015-01-12 9:43 ` Joonyoung Shim
2015-01-12 16:09 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2015-01-13 5:24 ` Joonyoung Shim
2015-01-13 8:40 ` Joonyoung Shim
2015-01-13 9:43 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2015-01-13 9:21 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2015-01-14 0:19 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2015-01-14 0:24 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2015-01-20 11:12 ` Joonyoung Shim
2015-01-20 14:05 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2015-01-16 10:33 ` Marek Szyprowski
2015-01-16 15:44 ` Sjoerd Simons
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=24892200.rsOlz53AM6@avalon \
--to=laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).