From: Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org>
To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: akhilpo@codeaurora.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
jcrouse@codeaurora.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
robdclark@gmail.com, robin.murphy@arm.com,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
Jordan Crouse <jordan@cosmicpenguin.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 2/2] iommu/arm-smmu-qcom: Move the adreno smmu specific impl earlier
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 13:10:12 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <727fa9fe2e644f88ba35c2877d71788e@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8cfaed1915ad6dd0c34ac7eb2391b410@codeaurora.org>
Hi Will,
On 2021-03-15 00:31, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
> On 2021-03-12 04:59, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>> On Sat 27 Feb 07:53 CST 2021, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Bjorn,
>>>
>>> On 2021-02-27 00:44, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>>> > On Fri 26 Feb 12:23 CST 2021, Rob Clark wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > The current logic picks one of:
>>> > 1) is the compatible mentioned in qcom_smmu_impl_of_match[]
>>> > 2) is the compatible an adreno
>>> > 3) no quirks needed
>>> >
>>> > The change flips the order of these, so the only way I can see this
>>> > change affecting things is if we expected a match on #2, but we got one
>>> > on #1.
>>> >
>>> > Which implies that the instance that we want to act according to the
>>> > adreno impl was listed in qcom_smmu_impl_of_match[] - which either is
>>> > wrong, or there's a single instance that needs both behaviors.
>>> >
>>> > (And I believe Jordan's answer confirms the latter - there's a single
>>> > SMMU instance that needs all them quirks at once)
>>> >
>>>
>>> Let me go through the problem statement in case my commit message
>>> wasn't
>>> clear. There are two SMMUs (APSS and GPU) on SC7280 and both are
>>> SMMU500
>>> (ARM SMMU IP).
>>>
>>> APSS SMMU compatible - ("qcom,sc7280-smmu-500", "arm,mmu-500")
>>> GPU SMMU compatible - ("qcom,sc7280-smmu-500", "qcom,adreno-smmu",
>>> "arm,mmu-500")
>>>
>>> Now if we take SC7180 as an example, GPU SMMU was QSMMU(QCOM SMMU IP)
>>> and APSS SMMU was SMMU500(ARM SMMU IP).
>>>
>>> APSS SMMU compatible - ("qcom,sc7180-smmu-500", "arm,mmu-500")
>>> GPU SMMU compatible - ("qcom,sc7180-smmu-v2", "qcom,adreno-smmu",
>>> "qcom,smmu-v2")
>>>
>>> Current code sequence without this patch,
>>>
>>> if (of_match_node(qcom_smmu_impl_of_match, np))
>>> return qcom_smmu_create(smmu, &qcom_smmu_impl);
>>>
>>> if (of_device_is_compatible(np, "qcom,adreno-smmu"))
>>> return qcom_smmu_create(smmu, &qcom_adreno_smmu_impl);
>>>
>>> Now if we look at the compatible for SC7180, there is no problem
>>> because
>>> the APSS SMMU will match the one in qcom_smmu_impl_of_match[] and GPU
>>> SMMU
>>> will match "qcom,adreno-smmu" because the compatible strings are
>>> different.
>>> But for SC7280, both the APSS SMMU and GPU SMMU
>>> compatible("qcom,sc7280-smmu-500")
>>> are same. So GPU SMMU will match with the one in
>>> qcom_smmu_impl_of_match[]
>>> i.e.., "qcom,sc7280-smmu-500" which functionally doesn't cause any
>>> problem
>>> but we will miss settings for split pagetables which are part of GPU
>>> SMMU
>>> specific implementation.
>>>
>>> We can avoid this with yet another new compatible for GPU SMMU
>>> something like
>>> "qcom,sc7280-adreno-smmu-500" but since we can handle this easily in
>>> the
>>> driver and since the IPs are same, meaning if there was a hardware
>>> quirk
>>> required, then we would need to apply to both of them and would this
>>> additional
>>> compatible be of any help?
>>>
>>
>> No, I think you're doing the right thing of having them both. I just
>> didn't remember us doing that.
>>
>>> Coming to the part of quirks now, you are right saying both SMMUs
>>> will need
>>> to have the same quirks in SC7280 and similar others where both are
>>> based on
>>> same IPs but those should probably be *hardware quirks* and if they
>>> are
>>> software based like the S2CR quirk depending on the firmware, then it
>>> might
>>> not be applicable to both. In case if it is applicable, then as
>>> Jordan mentioned,
>>> we can add the same quirks in GPU SMMU implementation.
>>>
>>
>> I do suspect that at some point (probably sooner than later) we'd have
>> to support both inheriting of stream from the bootloader and the
>> Adreno
>> "quirks" in the same instance.
>>
>> But for now this is okay to me.
>>
>
> Sure, let me know if you or anyone face any issues without it and I
> will
> add it. I will resend this series with the dt-bindings patch for sc7280
> smmu
> which wasn't cc'd to smmu folks by mistake.
>
I think there is consensus on this series. I can resend if required but
it
still applies cleanly, let me know if you have any comments?
Thanks,
Sai
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a
member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-25 7:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-02-26 9:55 [PATCHv2 0/2] iommu/arm-smmu-qcom: Add SC7280 support Sai Prakash Ranjan
2021-02-26 9:55 ` [PATCHv2 1/2] iommu/arm-smmu-qcom: Add SC7280 SMMU compatible Sai Prakash Ranjan
2021-02-26 9:55 ` [PATCHv2 2/2] iommu/arm-smmu-qcom: Move the adreno smmu specific impl earlier Sai Prakash Ranjan
2021-02-26 15:51 ` Jordan Crouse
2021-02-26 17:24 ` Bjorn Andersson
2021-02-26 18:23 ` Rob Clark
2021-02-26 19:14 ` Bjorn Andersson
2021-02-27 13:53 ` Sai Prakash Ranjan
2021-03-11 23:29 ` Bjorn Andersson
2021-03-14 19:01 ` Sai Prakash Ranjan
2021-03-25 7:40 ` Sai Prakash Ranjan [this message]
2021-03-25 15:05 ` Will Deacon
2021-04-05 8:42 ` Sai Prakash Ranjan
2021-04-19 3:11 ` Sai Prakash Ranjan
2021-02-26 18:48 ` Jordan Crouse
2021-02-26 19:54 ` Jordan Crouse
2021-04-19 14:38 ` Bjorn Andersson
2021-04-20 6:06 ` Sai Prakash Ranjan
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=727fa9fe2e644f88ba35c2877d71788e@codeaurora.org \
--to=saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org \
--cc=akhilpo@codeaurora.org \
--cc=bjorn.andersson@linaro.org \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jcrouse@codeaurora.org \
--cc=jordan@cosmicpenguin.net \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=robdclark@gmail.com \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/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).