On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 07:12:36PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > @@ -2502,6 +2647,7 @@ static void arm_smmu_release_device(struct device *dev)
> >
> > master = dev_iommu_priv_get(dev);
> > WARN_ON(arm_smmu_master_sva_enabled(master));
> > + iopf_queue_remove_device(master->smmu->evtq.iopf, dev);
> > arm_smmu_detach_dev(master);
> > arm_smmu_disable_pasid(master);
> > arm_smmu_remove_master(master);
>
> The lack of symmetry here bothers me a bit, but it's already true, so I guess
> this case is fine as well.
Normally the device driver calls iommu_dev_feat_disable(SVA) which does
iopf_queue_remove_device(). This is just a safety net in case the device
gets removed without the driver properly cleaning up (which will WARN as
well)
>
> ...
> >
> > @@ -2785,6 +2946,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_cmdq_init(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> > static int arm_smmu_init_queues(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> > {
> > int ret;
> > + bool sva = smmu->features & ARM_SMMU_FEAT_STALLS;
>
> FEAT_SVA?
Ugh yes, thanks. I left this as a bool instead of moving into the test
below because the PRI patch reuses it, but I think I'll just move it down
when resending.
Thanks,
Jean
>
> >
> > /* cmdq */
> > ret = arm_smmu_init_one_queue(smmu, &smmu->cmdq.q, ARM_SMMU_CMDQ_PROD,
> > @@ -2804,6 +2966,12 @@ static int arm_smmu_init_queues(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> > if (ret)
> > return ret;
> >
> > + if (sva && smmu->features & ARM_SMMU_FEAT_STALLS) {
>
> Isn't this checking same thing twice?
>
> > + smmu->evtq.iopf = iopf_queue_alloc(dev_name(smmu->dev));
> > + if (!smmu->evtq.iopf)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > + }
> > +
> > /* priq */
> > if (!(smmu->features & ARM_SMMU_FEAT_PRI))
> > return 0;
> > @@ -3718,6 +3886,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > iommu_device_unregister(&smmu->iommu);
> > iommu_device_sysfs_remove(&smmu->iommu);
> > arm_smmu_device_disable(smmu);
> > + iopf_queue_free(smmu->evtq.iopf);
> >
> > return 0;
> > }
>
