Hi Robin, On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 12:25 AM Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Vivek, > > On 2018-09-25 6:56 AM, Vivek Gautam wrote: > > Hi Robin, Will, > > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 8:41 AM Vivek Gautam > > <vivek.gautam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Robin, > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 3:52 PM Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 3:22 PM Tomasz Figa <tfiga@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 6:38 PM Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Tomasz, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 9/7/2018 2:46 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote: > >>>>>> Hi Vivek, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 11:46 PM Vivek Gautam > >>>>>> <vivek.gautam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>>>> From: Sricharan R <sricharan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The smmu device probe/remove and add/remove master device callbacks > >>>>>>> gets called when the smmu is not linked to its master, that is without > >>>>>>> the context of the master device. So calling runtime apis in those places > >>>>>>> separately. > >>>>>>> Global locks are also initialized before enabling runtime pm as the > >>>>>>> runtime_resume() calls device_reset() which does tlb_sync_global() > >>>>>>> that ultimately requires locks to be initialized. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sricharan R <sricharan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>>>> [vivek: Cleanup pm runtime calls] > >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <tfiga@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>>>> Tested-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>>>> --- > >>>>>>> drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c | 89 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- > >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 81 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > >>>>>> [snip] > >>>>>>> @@ -2215,10 +2281,17 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > >>>>>>> if (!bitmap_empty(smmu->context_map, ARM_SMMU_MAX_CBS)) > >>>>>>> dev_err(&pdev->dev, "removing device with active domains!\n"); > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> + arm_smmu_rpm_get(smmu); > >>>>>>> /* Turn the thing off */ > >>>>>>> writel(sCR0_CLIENTPD, ARM_SMMU_GR0_NS(smmu) + ARM_SMMU_GR0_sCR0); > >>>>>>> + arm_smmu_rpm_put(smmu); > >>>>>>> + > >>>>>>> + if (pm_runtime_enabled(smmu->dev)) > >>>>>>> + pm_runtime_force_suspend(smmu->dev); > >>>>>>> + else > >>>>>>> + clk_bulk_disable(smmu->num_clks, smmu->clks); > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> - clk_bulk_disable_unprepare(smmu->num_clks, smmu->clks); > >>>>>>> + clk_bulk_unprepare(smmu->num_clks, smmu->clks); > >>>>>> Aren't we missing pm_runtime_disable() here? We'll have the enable > >>>>>> count unbalanced if the driver is removed and probed again. > >>>>> > >>>>> pm_runtime_force_suspend() does a pm_runtime_disable() also if i am not > >>>>> wrong. > >>>>> And, as mentioned in a previous thread [1], we were seeing a warning > >>>>> which we avoided > >>>>> by keeping force_suspend(). > >>>>> > >>>>> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/7/8/124 > >>>> > >>>> I see, thanks. I didn't realize that pm_runtime_force_suspend() > >>>> already disables runtime PM indeed. Sorry for the noise. > >>> > >>> Hi Tomasz, > >>> No problem. Thanks for looking back at it. > >>> > >>> Hi Robin, > >>> If you are fine with this series, then can you please consider giving > >>> Reviewed-by, so that we are certain that this series will go in the next merge > >>> window. > >>> Thanks > >> > >> Gentle ping. > >> You ack will be very helpful in letting Will pull this series for 4.20. > >> Thanks. > > > > I would really appreciate if you could provide your ack for this series. > > Or if there are any concerns, I am willing to address them. > > Apologies, I thought I'd replied to say I'd be getting to this shortly, > but apparently not :( > > FWIW, "shortly" is now tomorrow - I don't *think* there's anything > outstanding, but given the number of subtleties we've turned up so far I > do just want one last thorough double-check to make sure. Cool. TIA for the review. I hope we have something that we can land :), and then work further to take care of addressing other needs of this driver. Thanks. Best regards Vivek > > Thanks, > Robin. > _______________________________________________ > iommu mailing list > iommu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu -- QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
