Hi Will,
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 6:29 PM Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Vivek,
>
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 08:15:38PM +0530, Vivek Gautam 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(-)
>
> This doesn't apply on my tree[1], possibly because I've got Robin's non-strict
> invalidation queued there. However, that got me thinking -- how does this
> work in conjunction with the timer-based TLB invalidation? Do we need to
> rpm_{get,put} around flush_iotlb_all()? If so, do we still need the calls
> in map/unmap when non-strict mode is in use?
I haven't tested things with flush queues, but from what it looks like
both .flush_iotlb_all, and .iotlb_sync callbacks need rpm_get/put().
I will respin the patches.
Thanks
Vivek
>
> Will
>
> [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/will/linux.git/log/?h=for-joerg/arm-smmu/updates
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
