From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751532AbcHPEWl (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 16 Aug 2016 00:22:41 -0400
Received: from mail-pf0-f193.google.com ([209.85.192.193]:35771 "EHLO
	mail-pf0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750729AbcHPEWk (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 16 Aug 2016 00:22:40 -0400
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/powernv: Initialise nest mmu
To: Alistair Popple <alistair@popple.id.au>
References: <1471243919-18362-1-git-send-email-alistair@popple.id.au>
 <20160815072240.GA21080@balbir.ozlabs.ibm.com>
 <1989530.M5axb7bib9@new-mexico>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        benh@kernel.crashing.org, stewart@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        mpe@ellerman.id.au
From: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a405f24b-2a80-4828-cf65-a40824130f5e@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 14:22:33 +1000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1989530.M5axb7bib9@new-mexico>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org



On 16/08/16 10:37, Alistair Popple wrote:
> Balbir,
> 
> <snip>
>  
>>> +	/* Update partition table control register on all Nest MMUs */
>>> +	opal_nmmu_set_ptcr(-1UL, __pa(partition_tb) | (PATB_SIZE_SHIFT - 12));
>>> +
>>
>> Just wondering if
>>
>> 1. Instead of using -1 for all cpus, we should do
>> 	for_each_online_cpu() {
>> 		opal_numm_set_ptcr(...)
>> 	}
> 
> Good question, but I don't think it makes sense to do that. The NMMU is
> per-chip/socket rather than per-cpu so it shouldn't be tied to
> onlining/offlining of individual CPUs.
> 
>> 2. In cpu hotplug path do the same when onlining and set to NULL on
>> offlining?
> 
> Again, the nmmu isn't tied to a specific CPU but rather a chip/socket. So in
> theory at least it's possible that all CPUs in a chip could be offline but
> other units on the chip could still be using the nmmu so we wouldn't want to
> disable the nmmu at that point.

Fair enough

Balbir Singh.