On 14.06.2017 10:39, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 1:15 AM, Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> There is no IOMMU on Tegra20, instead a GART would be picked as an IOMMU
>> provider.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Acked-by: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/drm.c | 3 ++-
>> drivers/gpu/host1x/dev.c | 3 ++-
>> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/drm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/drm.c
>> index e999391aedc9..aa7988dcc28f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/drm.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/drm.c
>> @@ -131,7 +131,8 @@ static int tegra_drm_load(struct drm_device *drm, unsigned long flags)
>> if (!tegra)
>> return -ENOMEM;
>>
>> - if (iommu_present(&platform_bus_type)) {
>> + if (iommu_present(&platform_bus_type) &&
>> + !of_machine_is_compatible("nvidia,tegra20")) {
>> u64 carveout_start, carveout_end, gem_start, gem_end;
>> struct iommu_domain_geometry *geometry;
>> unsigned long order;
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/host1x/dev.c b/drivers/gpu/host1x/dev.c
>> index f05ebb14fa63..6a805ed908c3 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/host1x/dev.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/host1x/dev.c
>> @@ -177,7 +177,8 @@ static int host1x_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> return err;
>> }
>>
>> - if (iommu_present(&platform_bus_type)) {
>> + if (iommu_present(&platform_bus_type) &&
>> + !of_machine_is_compatible("nvidia,tegra20")) {
>> struct iommu_domain_geometry *geometry;
>> unsigned long order;
>>
>
> This doesn't feel great... The commit message says there's no IOMMU,
> but iommu_present says otherwise. I know there's some more subtleties
> here, and the commit message does hint at this. But...
>
> If we don't want to treat the GART as an IOMMU, shouldn't we somehow
> make sure iommu_present() doesn't return true in these cases (or
> perhaps make something like tegra_use_iommu(), with a comment
> explaining why we don't want to allow the GART to be treated like a
> proper IOMMU)? These seems to be the only Tegra-specific calls to
> iommu_present()...
>
> That being said, the patch seems to have the right effect...
>
We don't want to treat the GART as an IOMMU right now, but I'd want to change
that in the (near?) future, so it's a kinda trivial preparation patch that
restores the GART driver and these of_machine_is_compatible() are supposed to go
away later. Probably I should mention this in the commit message(?).
I think we can add a Tegra20 specific IOCTL for an allocation of GART-able
memory and use it for a stuff like opentegra's EXA, its fallback allocations
migration is a pita and reserved CMA is never enough =)
--
Dmitry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
