On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 12:47:14PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> @@ -345,6 +345,11 @@ static void arm_smmu_cmdq_build_sync_cmd(u64 *cmd, struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,
> FIELD_PREP(CMDQ_SYNC_0_MSH, ARM_SMMU_SH_ISH) |
> FIELD_PREP(CMDQ_SYNC_0_MSIATTR, ARM_SMMU_MEMATTR_OIWB);
>
> + if (cmdq->type == TEGRA241_VCMDQ) {
> + cmd[0] |= FIELD_PREP(CMDQ_SYNC_0_CS, CMDQ_SYNC_0_CS_NONE);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> if (!(smmu->options & ARM_SMMU_OPT_MSIPOLL)) {
> cmd[0] |= FIELD_PREP(CMDQ_SYNC_0_CS, CMDQ_SYNC_0_CS_SEV);
> return;
> @@ -690,7 +695,8 @@ static int arm_smmu_cmdq_poll_until_sync(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,
> struct arm_smmu_cmdq *cmdq,
> struct arm_smmu_ll_queue *llq)
> {
> - if (smmu->options & ARM_SMMU_OPT_MSIPOLL)
> + if (smmu->options & ARM_SMMU_OPT_MSIPOLL &&
> + cmdq->type != TEGRA241_VCMDQ) {
> return __arm_smmu_cmdq_poll_until_msi(smmu, cmdq, llq);
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Would you prefer this one? I feel CMDQ_QUIRK_SYNC_CS_NONE_ONLY
> is more general looking though..
And we would need some additional lines of comments for the two
pieces above, explaining why TEGRA241_VCMDQ type needs the first
one while bypasses the second one. Again, it feels even worse :(
Thanks
Nicolin
