On 2020-01-22 11:48 am, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
Currently the QCOM specific smmu reset implementation is very
specific to SDM845 SoC and has a wait-for-safe logic which
may not be required for other SoCs. So move the SDM845 specific
logic to its specific reset function. Also add SC7180 SMMU
compatible for calling into QCOM specific implementation.
Signed-off-by: Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-impl.c | 8 +++++---
drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-qcom.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-impl.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-impl.c
index 74d97a886e93..c75b9d957b70 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-impl.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-impl.c
@@ -150,6 +150,8 @@ static const struct arm_smmu_impl arm_mmu500_impl = {
struct arm_smmu_device *arm_smmu_impl_init(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
{
+ const struct device_node *np = smmu->dev->of_node;
+
/*
* We will inevitably have to combine model-specific implementation
* quirks with platform-specific integration quirks, but everything
@@ -166,11 +168,11 @@ struct arm_smmu_device *arm_smmu_impl_init(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
break;
}
- if (of_property_read_bool(smmu->dev->of_node,
- "calxeda,smmu-secure-config-access"))
+ if (of_property_read_bool(np, "calxeda,smmu-secure-config-access"))
smmu->impl = &calxeda_impl;
- if (of_device_is_compatible(smmu->dev->of_node, "qcom,sdm845-smmu-500"))
+ if (of_device_is_compatible(np, "qcom,sdm845-smmu-500") ||
+ of_device_is_compatible(np, "qcom,sc7180-smmu-500"))
return qcom_smmu_impl_init(smmu);
return smmu;
diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-qcom.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-qcom.c
index 24c071c1d8b0..64a4ab270ab7 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-qcom.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-qcom.c
@@ -15,8 +15,6 @@ static int qcom_sdm845_smmu500_reset(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
{
int ret;
- arm_mmu500_reset(smmu);
-
/*
* To address performance degradation in non-real time clients,
* such as USB and UFS, turn off wait-for-safe on sdm845 based boards,
@@ -30,8 +28,20 @@ static int qcom_sdm845_smmu500_reset(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
return ret;
}
+static int qcom_smmu500_reset(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
+{
+ const struct device_node *np = smmu->dev->of_node;
+
+ arm_mmu500_reset(smmu);
+
+ if (of_device_is_compatible(np, "qcom,sdm845-smmu-500"))
+ return qcom_sdm845_smmu500_reset(smmu);
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
static const struct arm_smmu_impl qcom_smmu_impl = {
- .reset = qcom_sdm845_smmu500_reset,
+ .reset = qcom_smmu500_reset,
};
It might be logical to have a separate SDM845 impl rather than
indirecting within the callback itself, but I'm not too concerned either
way. For the arm-smmu-impl.c changes,
Reviewed-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@xxxxxxx>
Thanks,
Robin.
struct arm_smmu_device *qcom_smmu_impl_init(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
