On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 05:04:11PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > So.. is this a no-no? > > I of course would like to omit this entirely, but SMMUs on sdm630 and > friends are REALLY picky.. What seems to happen is that when the > driver tries to do things the "standard" way, hypervisor decides to > hang the platform or force a reboot. Not very usable. > > > This thing is needed for the platform to even boot properly and one > more [1] is required to make mdss work with video mode panels (the > fact that CMD-mode panels work is kinda hilarious to me). > > To be honest, there are even more qcom quirks (of which at least > qcom,dynamic and qcom-use-3-lvl-tables are used on 630).. [2] > > Looking forward to your answers and possibly better solutions. Nobody is disputing that the qcom SMMUs don't have their share of quirks but it seems that the community has mostly settled on the agreement that there are better ways to solve this than a handful of device tree properties. The current focus has been on moving more of the SMMU specific bits into the arm-smmu-qcom implementation [1] and I think that is the right way to go. As for the other quirks we can probably discuss those on a case by case basis. I doubt you will find much enthusiasm for qcom,use-3-lvl-tables and I've been working on replacing qcom,dynamic with something much better [2]. [1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/iommu/2020-July/046304.html [2] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/iommu/2020-July/046756.html Jordan > [1] https://github.com/konradybcio/linux/commit/83ac38af259968f92b6a8b7eab90096c78469f87 > [2] https://github.com/sonyxperiadev/kernel/blob/aosp/LA.UM.7.1.r1/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c#L404-L415 > > Regards > Konrad -- The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
