On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 11:09 PM, Tomasz Figa <tfiga@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 1:12 AM, Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:48 AM, Jordan Crouse <jcrouse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 12:31:29PM +0900, Tomasz Figa wrote: >>>> >>>> - When submitting commands to the GPU, the GPU driver will >>>> pm_runtime_get_sync() on the GPU device, which will automatically do >>>> the same on all the linked suppliers, which would also include the >>>> SMMU itself. The role of device links here is exactly that the GPU >>>> driver doesn't have to care which other devices need to be brought up. >>> >>> This is true. Assuming that the device link works correctly we would not need >>> to explicitly power the SMMU which makes my point entirely moot. >> >> Just to point out what motivated this patchset, the biggest problem is >> iommu_unmap() because that can happen when GPU is not powered on (or >> in the v4l2 case, because some other device dropped it's reference to >> the dma-buf allowing it to be free'd). Currently we pm get/put the >> GPU device around unmap, but it is kinda silly to boot up the GPU just >> to unmap a buffer. > > Note that in V4L2 both mapping and unmapping can happen completely > without involving the driver. So AFAICT the approach being implemented > by this patchset will not work, because there will be no one to power > up the IOMMU before the operation. Moreover, there are platforms for > which there is no reason to power up the IOMMU just for map/unmap, > because the hardware state is lost anyway and the only real work > needed is updating the page tables in memory. (I feel like this is > actually true for most of the platforms in the wild, but this is based > purely on the not so small number of platforms I worked with, haven't > bothered looking for more general evidence.) > At least as far as drm/msm/adreno, I'm not terribly concerned about other platforms that don't need to power up iommu. It's not really the same situation as a IP block that shows up in all different vendor's SoCs. But if you can convince Robin to go for get/put_sync() calls inside the iommu driver, I'm fine with that approach too. That is what I do in qcom_iommu already. But if not I'd like to at least solve this for some platforms if we can't solve for all. BR, -R >> >> (Semi-related, I would also like to batch map/unmap's, I just haven't >> gotten around to implementing it yet.. but that would be another case >> where a single get_supplier()/put_supplier() outside of the iommu >> would make sense instead of pm_get/put() inside the iommu driver's >> ->unmap().) >> >> If you really dislike the get/put_supplier() approach, then perhaps we >> need iommu_pm_get()/iommu_pm_put() operations that the iommu user >> could use to accomplish the same thing? > > I'm afraid this wouldn't work for V4L2 either. And I still haven't > been given any evidence that the approach I'm suggesting, which relies > only on existing pieces of infrastructure and which worked for both > Exynos and Rockchip, including V4L2, wouldn't work for SMMU and/or QC > SoCs. > > Best regards, > Tomasz -- 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
