[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f6822915-8921-c9cc-218a-f094ac5ed032@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 12:34:42 +0000
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@...eaurora.org>,
"list@....net:IOMMU DRIVERS" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, joro@...tes.org,
robh+dt <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
"list@....net:IOMMU DRIVERS" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tomasz Figa <tfiga@...omium.org>, jcrouse@...eaurora.org,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
Sricharan R <sricharan@...eaurora.org>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Archit Taneja <architt@...eaurora.org>,
linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 4/5] iommu/arm-smmu: Add the device_link between
masters and smmu
On 09/03/18 07:11, Vivek Gautam wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Vivek Gautam
> <vivek.gautam@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 6:17 PM, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com> wrote:
>>> On 02/03/18 10:10, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>>>>
>>>> From: Sricharan R <sricharan@...eaurora.org>
>>>>
>>>> Finally add the device link between the master device and
>>>> smmu, so that the smmu gets runtime enabled/disabled only when the
>>>> master needs it. This is done from add_device callback which gets
>>>> called once when the master is added to the smmu.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Sricharan R <sricharan@...eaurora.org>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@...eaurora.org>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
>>>> index 3d6a1875431f..bb1ea82c1003 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
>>>> @@ -217,6 +217,9 @@ struct arm_smmu_device {
>>>> /* IOMMU core code handle */
>>>> struct iommu_device iommu;
>>>> +
>>>> + /* runtime PM link to master */
>>>> + struct device_link *link;
>>>
>>>
>>> Just the one?
>
> we will either have to count all the devices that are present on the
> iommu bus, or
> maintain a list to which all the links can be added.
> But to add the list, we will have to initialize a LIST_HEAD in struct
> device_link
> as well.
>
> Or, I think we don't even need to maintain a pointer to link with smmu.
> In arm_smmu_remove_device(), we can find out the correct link, and delete it.
>
> list_for_each_entry(link, &dev->links.suppliers, c_node)
> if (link->supplier == smmu->dev);
> device_link_del(link);
>
> Should that be fine?
>
> Rafael, does the above snippet looks right to you? Context: smmu->dev
> is the supplier, and dev is the consumer. We want to find the link,
> and delete it.
Actually, looking at the existing code, it seems like device_link_add()
will in fact look up and return any existing link between a given
supplier and consumer - is that intentional API behaviour that users may
rely on to avoid keeping track of explicit link pointers? (or
conversely, might it be reasonable to factor out a device_link_find()
function?)
Robin.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists