Hi Vivek,
On 7/13/2017 10:43 AM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
> 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?
Apart from the locking, wonder why a explicit pm_runtime is needed
from unmap. Somehow looks like some path in the master using that
should have enabled the pm ?
Regards,
Sricharan
--
"QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
--
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
