On 07/13, 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?
>
While removing the spinlock around the map/unmap path may be one
thing, I'm not sure that's all of them. Is there a path from an
atomic DMA allocation (GFP_ATOMIC sort of thing) mapped into an
IOMMU for a device that can eventually get down to here and
attempt to turn a clk on?
--
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
