lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jul]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH V4 3/6] iommu/arm-smmu: Invoke pm_runtime during probe, add/remove device
    From
    Date
    Hi Vivek,

    On 7/13/2017 10:43 AM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
    > Hi Stephen,
    >
    >
    > On 07/13/2017 04:24 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
    >> On 07/06, Vivek Gautam wrote:
    >>> @@ -1231,12 +1237,18 @@ static int arm_smmu_map(struct iommu_domain *domain, unsigned long iova,
    >>> static size_t arm_smmu_unmap(struct iommu_domain *domain, unsigned long iova,
    >>> size_t size)
    >>> {
    >>> - struct io_pgtable_ops *ops = to_smmu_domain(domain)->pgtbl_ops;
    >>> + struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain = to_smmu_domain(domain);
    >>> + struct io_pgtable_ops *ops = smmu_domain->pgtbl_ops;
    >>> + size_t ret;
    >>> if (!ops)
    >>> return 0;
    >>> - return ops->unmap(ops, iova, size);
    >>> + pm_runtime_get_sync(smmu_domain->smmu->dev);
    >> Can these map/unmap ops be called from an atomic context? I seem
    >> to recall that being a problem before.
    >
    > That's something which was dropped in the following patch merged in master:
    > 523d7423e21b iommu/arm-smmu: Remove io-pgtable spinlock
    >
    > Looks like we don't need locks here anymore?

    Apart from the locking, wonder why a explicit pm_runtime is needed
    from unmap. Somehow looks like some path in the master using that
    should have enabled the pm ?

    Regards,
    Sricharan

    --
    "QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

    ---
    This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
    https://www.avast.com/antivirus

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2017-07-13 07:37    [W:4.259 / U:0.048 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site