RE: [PATCH V3 0/8] IOMMU probe deferral support

Sricharan
2016-11-30T00:34:13Z

Hi Lorenzo,

>-----Original Message-----
>From: linux-arm-kernel [mailto:linux-arm-kernel-bounces-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Lorenzo Pieralisi
>Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 11:44 PM
>To: Sricharan <sricharan-sgV2jX0FEOL9JmXXK+q4OQ@public.gmane.org>
>Cc: linux-arm-msm-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org; joro-zLv9SwRftAIdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org; will.deacon-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org; tfiga-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org; iommu-cunTk1MwBs/ROKNJybVBZg@public.gmane.org
>foundation.org; srinivas.kandagatla-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org; laurent.pinchart-ryLnwIuWjnjg/C1BVhZhaw@public.gmane.org; 'Robin Murphy' <robin.murphy-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>;
>linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org; m.szyprowski-Sze3O3UU22JBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org
>Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 0/8] IOMMU probe deferral support
>
>On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 11:12:08PM +0530, Sricharan wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> >Cool. We're rather hoping that the ACPI stuff is good to go for 4.10
>> >now, so it's probably worth pulling the rest of that in (beyond the one
>> >patch I picked) to make sure the of_dma_configure/acpi_dma_configure
>> >paths don't inadvertently diverge.
>> >
>>
>> I rebased and was testing your branch with Lorenzo's series. One thing
>> i am still trying to get right is the acpi_dma_configure call. With your
>> series dma_configure calls pci_dma/of_dma configure, so i am just adding
>> acpi_dma_configure call there for non-pci ACPI devices as well. I see that
>> acpi_dma_configure right now is called from acpi_bind_one and
>> iort_add_smmu_platform_device, both go through the really_probe function
>> path, so moving acpi_dma_configure from the above the two functions
>> to dma_configure. I remember we discussed this on another thread, so
>> hopefully it is correct. I do not have an platform to test the ACPI though.
>> I will take some testing help on V4 for this.
>
>I am happy to test it for you please just send me a pointer at your v4
>code.
>
I posted the v4 and CCed you there. So i am little skeptical about the acpi
changes that i have posted. I was checking for a function equivalent
in acpi as of_match_node in DT, to figure out if the iommu_spec.np that
the master device is pointing to is there in the iommu_of_table and based
on that we can decide if to defer the probe. I was seeing iort_scan_node
was its equivalent. But if that is not correct, then last patch has to be reworked.
Anyways will be good to know your feedback on this.

Regards,
Sricharan