On 8/18/2014 11:32 AM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:07 AM, joro@xxxxxxxxxx <joro@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 09:56:11AM -0700, Olav Haugan wrote:
>>> On 8/12/2014 3:48 AM, Rob Clark wrote:
>>>> iirc, one plan for 'flags' was some sort of DONT_FLUSH_TLB flag for
>>>> drivers which wanted to map/unmap N buffers with a single flush at the
>>>> end. There might have been some other usages envisioned.
>>>
>>> Yes, that was the original intent of the flags for now. I am sure we can
>>> find other uses for this in the future.
>>
>> Do you have anything else in mind already besides the DONT_FLUSH_TLB
>> flag?
No, I do not have other uses right now. But could imagine use cases like
"force <insert minimum mapping size here> mapping" flag etc.
>> How is the IOTLB supposed to be flushed when this flag is used?
>>
>
> well, I was thinking one of two ways:
>
> 1) add new flush() vfunc.. this, I think, would be most convenient for
> drivers using this feature
> 2) or driver simply doesn't set DONT_FLUSH_TLB flag on the last
> {map,unmap}.. that would be slightly more awkward to use, but would
> avoid adding a new vfunc
>
I agree and would support adding a public flush() API. It is cleaner.
However, it does allow clients to chose which method to use. Either an
extra call to flush() or just do not pass DONT_FLUSH_TLB flag on the
last invocation of map/unmap.
Thanks,
Olav
--
The 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 linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
