Re: [PATCH 0/5] Qcom smmu-500 TLB invalidation errata for sdm845

From: Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org>
To: Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	"list@263.net:IOMMU DRIVERS" <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
	joro@8bytes.org, Andy Gross <andy.gross@linaro.org>,
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
	"list@263.net:IOMMU DRIVERS" <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
	iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	David Brown <david.brown@linaro.org>,
	Tomasz Figa <tfiga@chromium.org>,
	Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Qcom smmu-500 TLB invalidation errata for sdm845
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 16:55:22 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3ac669af-a68e-874f-4c3e-91a2e9f676af@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAF6AEGsuAXXtUbeteQk5ssZEqk8XLViDZH5PfxQjn6sg8+B08A@mail.gmail.com>

On 9/5/2018 3:34 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 5:22 AM Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 8/14/2018 5:54 PM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>>> Hi Will,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/14/2018 5:10 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>> Hi Vivek,
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 04:25:23PM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>>>>> Qcom's implementation of arm,mmu-500 on sdm845 has a
>>>>> functional/performance
>>>>> errata [1] because of which the TCU cache look ups are stalled during
>>>>> invalidation cycle. This is mitigated by serializing all the
>>>>> invalidation
>>>>> requests coming to the smmu.
>>>> How does this implementation differ from the one supported by
>>>> qcom_iommu.c?
>>>> I notice you're adding firmware hooks here, which we avoided by
>>>> having the
>>>> extra driver. Please help me understand which devices exist, how they
>>>> differ, and which drivers are intended to support them!
>>> IIRC, the qcom_iommu driver was intended to support the static context
>>> bank - SID
>>> mapping, and is very specific to the smmu-v2 version present on
>>> msm8916 soc.
>>> However, this is the qcom's mmu-500 implementation specific errata.
>>> qcom_iommu
>>> will not be able to support mmu-500 configurations.
>>> Rob Clark can add more.
>>> Let you know what you suggest.
>> Rob, can you please comment about how qcom-smmu driver has different
>> implementation
>> from arm-smmu driver?
> sorry, I missed this thread earlier.  But yeah, as you mentioned, the
> purpose for qcom_iommu.c was to deal with the static context/SID
> mapping.
>
> (I guess it is all just software, and we could make qcom_iommu.c
> support dynamic mapping as well, but I think then it starts to
> duplicate most of arm_smmu.c, so that doesn't seem like the right
> direction)

Thanks Rob for the response. I will wait for Will's response on how would he
like this support be implemented.

Best regards
Vivek
>
> BR,
> -R
>
>> Will, in case we would want to use arm-smmu driver, what would you
>> suggest for
>> having the firmware hooks?
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Best regards
>> Vivek