Hi Stephen,
On 07/13/2017 04:24 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 07/06, Vivek Gautam wrote:
@@ -1231,12 +1237,18 @@ static int arm_smmu_map(struct iommu_domain *domain, unsigned long iova,
static size_t arm_smmu_unmap(struct iommu_domain *domain, unsigned long iova,
size_t size)
{
- struct io_pgtable_ops *ops = to_smmu_domain(domain)->pgtbl_ops;
+ struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain = to_smmu_domain(domain);
+ struct io_pgtable_ops *ops = smmu_domain->pgtbl_ops;
+ size_t ret;
if (!ops)
return 0;
- return ops->unmap(ops, iova, size);
+ pm_runtime_get_sync(smmu_domain->smmu->dev);
Can these map/unmap ops be called from an atomic context? I seem
to recall that being a problem before.
That's something which was dropped in the following patch merged in master:
523d7423e21b iommu/arm-smmu: Remove io-pgtable spinlock
Looks like we don't need locks here anymore?
Best Regards
Vivek
+ ret = ops->unmap(ops, iova, size);
+ pm_runtime_put_sync(smmu_domain->smmu->dev);
+
+ return ret;
}
static phys_addr_t arm_smmu_iova_to_phys_hard(struct iommu_domain *domain,
--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
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
