Re: [PATCH 4/5] iommu/arm-smmu: Make way to add Qcom's smmu-500 errata handling

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

 



Hi Robin,


On 8/14/2018 10:29 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
On 14/08/18 11:55, Vivek Gautam wrote:
Cleanup to re-use some of the stuff

Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
  drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
  1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

I think the overall diffstat would be an awful lot smaller if the erratum workaround just has its own readl_poll_timeout() as it does in the vendor kernel. The burst-polling loop is for minimising latency in high-throughput situations, and if you're in a workaround which has to lock *every* register write and issue two firmware calls around each sync I think you're already well out of that game.

Sorry for the delayed response. I was on vacation.
I will fix this in my next version by adding the separate read_poll_timeout() for the erratum WA.


diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
index 32e86df80428..75c146751c87 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
@@ -391,21 +391,31 @@ static void __arm_smmu_free_bitmap(unsigned long *map, int idx)
      clear_bit(idx, map);
  }
  -/* Wait for any pending TLB invalidations to complete */
-static void __arm_smmu_tlb_sync(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,
-                void __iomem *sync, void __iomem *status)
+static int __arm_smmu_tlb_sync_wait(void __iomem *status)
  {
      unsigned int spin_cnt, delay;
  -    writel_relaxed(0, sync);
      for (delay = 1; delay < TLB_LOOP_TIMEOUT; delay *= 2) {
          for (spin_cnt = TLB_SPIN_COUNT; spin_cnt > 0; spin_cnt--) {
              if (!(readl_relaxed(status) & sTLBGSTATUS_GSACTIVE))
-                return;
+                return 0;
              cpu_relax();
          }
          udelay(delay);
      }
+
+    return -EBUSY;
+}
+
+/* Wait for any pending TLB invalidations to complete */
+static void __arm_smmu_tlb_sync(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,
+                void __iomem *sync, void __iomem *status)
+{
+    writel_relaxed(0, sync);
+
+    if (!__arm_smmu_tlb_sync_wait(status))
+        return;
+
      dev_err_ratelimited(smmu->dev,
                  "TLB sync timed out -- SMMU may be deadlocked\n");
  }
@@ -461,8 +471,9 @@ static void arm_smmu_tlb_inv_context_s2(void *cookie)
      arm_smmu_tlb_sync_global(smmu);
  }
  -static void arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_nosync(unsigned long iova, size_t size,
-                      size_t granule, bool leaf, void *cookie)
+static void __arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_nosync(unsigned long iova, size_t size,
+                        size_t granule, bool leaf,
+                        void *cookie)
  {
      struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain = cookie;
      struct arm_smmu_cfg *cfg = &smmu_domain->cfg;
@@ -498,6 +509,13 @@ static void arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_nosync(unsigned long iova, size_t size,
      }
  }
  +static void arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_nosync(unsigned long iova, size_t size,
+                      size_t granule, bool leaf,
+                      void *cookie)
+{
+    __arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_nosync(iova, size, granule, leaf, cookie);
+}
+

AFAICS even after patch #5 this does absolutely nothing except make the code needlessly harder to read :(

Sure, I will rather call arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_nosync() from
qcom_errata_tlb_inv_range_nosync() then make this change.
Thanks for the review.

Best regards
Vivek


Robin.

  /*
   * On MMU-401 at least, the cost of firing off multiple TLBIVMIDs appears    * almost negligible, but the benefit of getting the first one in as far ahead





[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