On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:10 AM Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 09:32:54AM +0530, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote: > > On 2020-11-24 00:52, Rob Clark wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 9:01 AM Sai Prakash Ranjan > > > <saiprakash.ranjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 2020-11-23 20:51, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 08:00:39PM +0530, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote: > > > > >> Some hardware variants contain a system cache or the last level > > > > >> cache(llc). This cache is typically a large block which is shared > > > > >> by multiple clients on the SOC. GPU uses the system cache to cache > > > > >> both the GPU data buffers(like textures) as well the SMMU pagetables. > > > > >> This helps with improved render performance as well as lower power > > > > >> consumption by reducing the bus traffic to the system memory. > > > > >> > > > > >> The system cache architecture allows the cache to be split into slices > > > > >> which then be used by multiple SOC clients. This patch series is an > > > > >> effort to enable and use two of those slices preallocated for the GPU, > > > > >> one for the GPU data buffers and another for the GPU SMMU hardware > > > > >> pagetables. > > > > >> > > > > >> Patch 1 - Patch 6 adds system cache support in SMMU and GPU driver. > > > > >> Patch 7 and 8 are minor cleanups for arm-smmu impl. > > > > >> > > > > >> Changes in v8: > > > > >> * Introduce a generic domain attribute for pagetable config (Will) > > > > >> * Rename quirk to more generic IO_PGTABLE_QUIRK_ARM_OUTER_WBWA (Will) > > > > >> * Move non-strict mode to use new struct domain_attr_io_pgtbl_config > > > > >> (Will) > > > > > > > > > > Modulo some minor comments I've made, this looks good to me. What is > > > > > the > > > > > plan for merging it? I can take the IOMMU parts, but patches 4-6 touch > > > > > the > > > > > MSM GPU driver and I'd like to avoid conflicts with that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > SMMU bits are pretty much independent and GPU relies on the domain > > > > attribute > > > > and the quirk exposed, so as long as SMMU changes go in first it > > > > should > > > > be good. > > > > Rob? > > > > > > I suppose one option would be to split out the patch that adds the > > > attribute into it's own patch, and merge that both thru drm and iommu? > > > > > > > Ok I can split out domain attr and quirk into its own patch if Will is > > fine with that approach. > > Why don't I just queue the first two patches on their own branch and we > both pull that? Ok, that works for me. I normally base msm-next on -rc1 but I guess as long as we base the branch on the older or our two -next branches, that should work out nicely BR, -R
