Re: [PATCH v7 3/5] iommu/arm-smmu: introduction of ACTLR for custom prefetcher settings

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 1/12/2024 6:44 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 at 15:07, Bibek Kumar Patro
<quic_bibekkum@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On 1/12/2024 3:31 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:


On 1/11/24 19:09, Bibek Kumar Patro wrote:


On 1/10/2024 11:26 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:


On 1/10/24 13:55, Bibek Kumar Patro wrote:


On 1/10/2024 4:46 PM, Bibek Kumar Patro wrote:


On 1/10/2024 9:36 AM, Pavan Kondeti wrote:

[...]

@@ -274,6 +321,21 @@ static const struct of_device_id
qcom_smmu_client_of_match[] __maybe_unused = {
   static int qcom_smmu_init_context(struct arm_smmu_domain
*smmu_domain,
           struct io_pgtable_cfg *pgtbl_cfg, struct device *dev)
   {
+    struct arm_smmu_device *smmu = smmu_domain->smmu;
+    struct qcom_smmu *qsmmu = to_qcom_smmu(smmu);
+    const struct actlr_variant *actlrvar;
+    int cbndx = smmu_domain->cfg.cbndx;
+
+    if (qsmmu->data->actlrvar) {
+        actlrvar = qsmmu->data->actlrvar;
+        for (; actlrvar->io_start; actlrvar++) {
+            if (actlrvar->io_start == smmu->ioaddr) {
+                qcom_smmu_set_actlr(dev, smmu, cbndx,
actlrvar->actlrcfg);
+                break;
+            }
+        }
+    }
+

This block and the one in qcom_adreno_smmu_init_context() are exactly
the same. Possible to do some refactoring?


I will check if this repeated blocks can be accomodated this into
qcom_smmu_set_actlr function if that would be fine.


Also adding to this, this might increase the number of indentation
inside qcom_smmu_set_actlr as well, to around 5. So wouldn't this
be an issue?

By the way, we can refactor this:

if (qsmmu->data->actlrvar) {
      actlrvar = qsmmu->data->actlrvar;
      for (; actlrvar->io_start; actlrvar++) {
          if (actlrvar->io_start == smmu->ioaddr) {
              qcom_smmu_set_actlr(dev, smmu, cbndx, actlrvar->actlrcfg);
              break;
          }
      }
}

into

// add const u8 num_actlrcfgs to struct actrl_variant to
// save on sentinel space:
//   sizeof(u8) < sizeof(ptr) + sizeof(resource_size_t)


Git it, Would it be better to add this in struct qcom_smmu_match_data ?

Yes, right.


Actually, I noticed now, we can do both the actlr_config (num_actlrcfg
is used) and actlr_var (num_smmu is used) in the similar by storing the
number of elements in each of them.
something like this:

+static const struct actlr_config sc7280_apps_actlr_cfg[] = {
+       { 0x0800, 0x24e1, PREFETCH_DEFAULT | CMTLB },
+       { 0x2000, 0x0163, PREFETCH_DEFAULT | CMTLB },
+       { 0x2080, 0x0461, PREFETCH_DEFAULT | CMTLB },
+       { 0x2100, 0x0161, PREFETCH_DEFAULT | CMTLB },
+       { 0x0900, 0x0407, PREFETCH_SHALLOW | CPRE | CMTLB },
+       { 0x2180, 0x0027, PREFETCH_SHALLOW | CPRE | CMTLB },
+       { 0x1000, 0x07ff, PREFETCH_DEEP | CPRE | CMTLB },
+};
+
+static const struct actlr_config sc7280_gfx_actlr_cfg[] = {
+       { 0x0000, 0x07ff, PREFETCH_SWITCH_GFX | PREFETCH_DEEP | CPRE | CMTLB },
+};
+
+static const struct actlr_variant sc7280_actlr[] = {
+       { .io_start = 0x15000000, .actlrcfg = sc7280_apps_actlr_cfg,
.num_actlrcfg = 7 },
+       { .io_start = 0x03da0000, .actlrcfg = sc7280_gfx_actlr_cfg,
.num_actlrcfg = 1 },
+};
+
   static const struct actlr_config sm8550_apps_actlr_cfg[] = {
         { 0x18a0, 0x0000, PREFETCH_SHALLOW | CPRE | CMTLB },
         { 0x18e0, 0x0000, PREFETCH_SHALLOW | CPRE | CMTLB },
@@ -661,6 +680,13 @@ static const struct qcom_smmu_match_data
sdm845_smmu_500_data = {
         /* Also no debug configuration. */
   };

+static const struct qcom_smmu_match_data sc7280_smmu_500_impl0_data = {
+       .impl = &qcom_smmu_500_impl,
+       .adreno_impl = &qcom_adreno_smmu_500_impl,
+       .cfg = &qcom_smmu_impl0_cfg,
+       .actlrvar = sc7280_actlr,
+       .num_smmu = 2,
+};

Just for note , there's a small hiccup here as we have to manually
calculate and the number of elements in actlr_config size everytime we
add this info for a new target, won't be an issue though but just a
hindrance to automation (?)

Just use ARRAY_SIZE(sc7280_actlr).


Noted, ARRAY_SIZE makes sense now for this new io_address based
matching.

Thanks & regards,
Bibek






[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [Linux for Sparc]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux