Hi Tomasz,
Please find my response inline below.
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 1:33 PM, Tomasz Figa <tfiga@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Vivek,
>
> Thanks for the patch. Please see some comments inline.
>
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 7:31 PM, Vivek Gautam
> <vivek.gautam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> From: Sricharan R <sricharan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> The smmu needs to be functional only when the respective
>> master's using it are active. The device_link feature
>> helps to track such functional dependencies, so that the
>> iommu gets powered when the master device enables itself
>> using pm_runtime. So by adapting the smmu driver for
>> runtime pm, above said dependency can be addressed.
>>
>> This patch adds the pm runtime/sleep callbacks to the
>> driver and also the functions to parse the smmu clocks
>> from DT and enable them in resume/suspend.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sricharan R <sricharan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Archit Taneja <architt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> [vivek: Clock rework to request bulk of clocks]
>> Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
>> index 69e7c60792a8..9e2f917e16c2 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
>> @@ -48,6 +48,7 @@
>> #include <linux/of_iommu.h>
>> #include <linux/pci.h>
>> #include <linux/platform_device.h>
>> +#include <linux/pm_runtime.h>
>> #include <linux/slab.h>
>> #include <linux/spinlock.h>
>>
>> @@ -205,6 +206,8 @@ struct arm_smmu_device {
>> u32 num_global_irqs;
>> u32 num_context_irqs;
>> unsigned int *irqs;
>> + struct clk_bulk_data *clocks;
>> + int num_clks;
>
> nit: Perhaps "num_clocks" to be consistent with "clocks"?
>
>>
>> u32 cavium_id_base; /* Specific to Cavium */
>>
>> @@ -1897,10 +1900,12 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_cfg_probe(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>> struct arm_smmu_match_data {
>> enum arm_smmu_arch_version version;
>> enum arm_smmu_implementation model;
>> + const char * const *clks;
>> + int num_clks;
>
> nit: Perhaps s/clks/clocks/ here or s/clocks/clks/ in struct arm_smmu_device?
Sure. Will change to s/clocks/clks/ in struct arm_smmu_device.
>
>> };
>>
>> #define ARM_SMMU_MATCH_DATA(name, ver, imp) \
>> -static struct arm_smmu_match_data name = { .version = ver, .model = imp }
>> +static const struct arm_smmu_match_data name = { .version = ver, .model = imp }
>>
>> ARM_SMMU_MATCH_DATA(smmu_generic_v1, ARM_SMMU_V1, GENERIC_SMMU);
>> ARM_SMMU_MATCH_DATA(smmu_generic_v2, ARM_SMMU_V2, GENERIC_SMMU);
>> @@ -2001,6 +2006,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_dt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev,
>> data = of_device_get_match_data(dev);
>> smmu->version = data->version;
>> smmu->model = data->model;
>> + smmu->num_clks = data->num_clks;
>>
>> parse_driver_options(smmu);
>>
>> @@ -2039,6 +2045,28 @@ static void arm_smmu_bus_init(void)
>> #endif
>> }
>>
>> +static int arm_smmu_init_clks(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>> +{
>> + int i;
>> + int num = smmu->num_clks;
>> + const struct arm_smmu_match_data *data;
>> +
>> + if (num < 1)
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + smmu->clocks = devm_kcalloc(smmu->dev, num,
>> + sizeof(*smmu->clocks), GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!smmu->clocks)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> + data = of_device_get_match_data(smmu->dev);
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < num; i++)
>> + smmu->clocks[i].id = data->clks[i];
>
> I'd argue that arm_smmu_device_dt_probe() is a better place for all
> the code above, since this function is called regardless of whether
> the device is probed from DT or not. Going further,
> arm_smmu_device_acpi_probe() could fill smmu->num_clks and ->clocks
> using ACPI-like way (as opposed to OF match data) if necessary.
Right, it's valid to fill the data in arm_smmu_device_dt_probe().
Perhaps we can just keep the devm_clk_bulk_get() in arm_smmu_device_probe()
at the point where we are currently doing arm_smmu_init_clks().
Thanks & regards
Vivek
>
> Best regards,
> Tomasz
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
