From: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>, Krishna Reddy <vdumpa@nvidia.com>
Cc: talho@nvidia.com, treding@nvidia.com, bhuntsman@nvidia.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
mperttunen@nvidia.com, nicoleotsuka@gmail.com, snikam@nvidia.com,
nicolinc@nvidia.com, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org,
yhsu@nvidia.com, praithatha@nvidia.com, will@kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, bbiswas@nvidia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/3] iommu/arm-smmu: add NVIDIA implementation for dual ARM MMU-500 usage
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 16:17:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a9d6b11b-d904-153a-6363-6e3a8f62e03f@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d59b7220-168c-419f-db16-194307e11065@arm.com>
On 30/06/2020 15:53, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2020-06-30 09:19, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>
>> On 30/06/2020 01:10, Krishna Reddy wrote:
>>> NVIDIA's Tegra194 SoC uses two ARM MMU-500s together to interleave
>>> IOVA accesses across them.
>>> Add NVIDIA implementation for dual ARM MMU-500s and add new compatible
>>> string for Tegra194 SoC SMMU topology.
>>
>> There is no description here of the 3rd SMMU that you mention below.
>> I think that we should describe the full picture here.
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Krishna Reddy <vdumpa@nvidia.com>
...
>>> +static void nvidia_smmu_tlb_sync(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, int
>>> page,
>>> + int sync, int status)
>>> +{
>>> + unsigned int delay;
>>> +
>>> + arm_smmu_writel(smmu, page, sync, 0);
>>> +
>>> + for (delay = 1; delay < TLB_LOOP_TIMEOUT_IN_US; delay *= 2) {
>>
>> So we are doubling the delay every time? Is this better than just using
>> the same on each loop?
>
> This is the same logic as the main driver (see 8513c8930069) - the sync
> is expected to complete relatively quickly, hence why we have the inner
> spin loop to avoid the delay entirely in the typical case, and the
> longer it's taking, the more likely it is that something's wrong and it
> will never complete anyway. Realistically, a heavily loaded SMMU at a
> modest clock rate might take us through a couple of iterations of the
> outer loop, but beyond that we're pretty much just killing time until we
> declare it wedged and give up, and by then there's not much point in
> burning power frantically hamering on the interconnect.
Ah OK. Then maybe we should move the definitions for TLB_LOOP_TIMEOUT
and TLB_SPIN_COUNT into the arm-smmu.h so that we can use them directly
in this file instead of redefining them. Then it maybe clear that these
are part of the main driver.
>>> +struct arm_smmu_device *nvidia_smmu_impl_init(struct arm_smmu_device
>>> *smmu)
>>> +{
>>> + unsigned int i;
>>> + struct nvidia_smmu *nvidia_smmu;
>>> + struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(smmu->dev);
>>> +
>>> + nvidia_smmu = devm_kzalloc(smmu->dev, sizeof(*nvidia_smmu),
>>> GFP_KERNEL);
>>> + if (!nvidia_smmu)
>>> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>>> +
>>> + nvidia_smmu->smmu = *smmu;
>>> + /* Instance 0 is ioremapped by arm-smmu.c after this function
>>> returns */
>>> + nvidia_smmu->num_inst = 1;
>>> +
>>> + for (i = 1; i < MAX_SMMU_INSTANCES; i++) {
>>> + struct resource *res;
>>> +
>>> + res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, i);
>>> + if (!res)
>>> + break;
>>> +
>>> + nvidia_smmu->bases[i] = devm_ioremap_resource(smmu->dev, res);
>>> + if (IS_ERR(nvidia_smmu->bases[i]))
>>> + return ERR_CAST(nvidia_smmu->bases[i]);
>>> +
>>> + nvidia_smmu->num_inst++;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + nvidia_smmu->smmu.impl = &nvidia_smmu_impl;
>>> + /*
>>> + * Free the arm_smmu_device struct allocated in arm-smmu.c.
>>> + * Once this function returns, arm-smmu.c would use arm_smmu_device
>>> + * allocated as part of nvidia_smmu struct.
>>> + */
>>> + devm_kfree(smmu->dev, smmu);
>>
>> Why don't we just store the pointer of the smmu struct passed to this
>> function
>> in the nvidia_smmu struct and then we do not need to free this here.
>> In other
>> words make ...
>>
>> struct nvidia_smmu {
>> struct arm_smmu_device *smmu;
>> unsigned int num_inst;
>> void __iomem *bases[MAX_SMMU_INSTANCES];
>> };
>>
>> This seems more appropriate, than copying the struct and freeing memory
>> allocated else-where.
>
> But then how do you get back to struct nvidia_smmu given just a pointer
> to struct arm_smmu_device?
Ah yes of course that is what I was missing. I wondered what was going
on here. So I think we should add a nice comment in the above function
of why we are copying this and cannot simply store the pointer.
Cheers
Jon
--
nvpublic
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-30 15:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-30 0:10 [PATCH v8 0/3] Nvidia Arm SMMUv2 Implementation Krishna Reddy
2020-06-30 0:10 ` [PATCH v8 1/3] iommu/arm-smmu: add NVIDIA implementation for dual ARM MMU-500 usage Krishna Reddy
2020-06-30 0:16 ` Nicolin Chen
2020-06-30 5:54 ` Pritesh Raithatha
2020-06-30 8:19 ` Jon Hunter
2020-06-30 14:53 ` Robin Murphy
2020-06-30 15:17 ` Jon Hunter [this message]
2020-07-01 18:18 ` Krishna Reddy
2020-07-01 18:56 ` Robin Murphy
2020-07-01 19:12 ` Krishna Reddy
2020-06-30 17:04 ` Krishna Reddy
2020-06-30 10:17 ` Jon Hunter
2020-06-30 16:23 ` Krishna Reddy
2020-06-30 16:32 ` Jon Hunter
2020-06-30 16:44 ` Jon Hunter
2020-06-30 17:16 ` Krishna Reddy
2020-06-30 19:03 ` Jon Hunter
2020-06-30 20:21 ` Krishna Reddy
2020-06-30 0:10 ` [PATCH v8 2/3] dt-bindings: arm-smmu: Add binding for Tegra194 SMMU Krishna Reddy
2020-06-30 6:01 ` Pritesh Raithatha
2020-06-30 8:21 ` Jon Hunter
2020-06-30 12:27 ` Robin Murphy
2020-07-01 18:28 ` Krishna Reddy
2020-07-01 18:47 ` Jon Hunter
2020-07-01 19:00 ` Krishna Reddy
2020-07-01 19:31 ` Jon Hunter
2020-07-01 19:39 ` Krishna Reddy
2020-07-02 16:05 ` Robin Murphy
2020-07-01 19:03 ` Robin Murphy
2020-06-30 0:10 ` [PATCH v8 3/3] iommu/arm-smmu: Add global/context fault implementation hooks Krishna Reddy
2020-06-30 0:19 ` Nicolin Chen
2020-06-30 5:58 ` Pritesh Raithatha
2020-06-30 8:37 ` Jon Hunter
2020-06-30 12:13 ` Robin Murphy
2020-06-30 12:42 ` Jon Hunter
2020-07-01 18:48 ` Krishna Reddy
2020-07-01 19:14 ` Robin Murphy
2020-07-01 19:22 ` Krishna Reddy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=a9d6b11b-d904-153a-6363-6e3a8f62e03f@nvidia.com \
--to=jonathanh@nvidia.com \
--cc=bbiswas@nvidia.com \
--cc=bhuntsman@nvidia.com \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mperttunen@nvidia.com \
--cc=nicoleotsuka@gmail.com \
--cc=nicolinc@nvidia.com \
--cc=praithatha@nvidia.com \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=snikam@nvidia.com \
--cc=talho@nvidia.com \
--cc=treding@nvidia.com \
--cc=vdumpa@nvidia.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=yhsu@nvidia.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).