linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v16 5/5] iommu/arm-smmu: Add support for qcom,smmu-v2 variant

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <80f7a7df-9a6d-9de3-4c7c-261d96fb04e4@arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 26 Sep 2018 16:59:09 +0100
From:   Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To:     Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@...eaurora.org>, joro@...tes.org,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, will.deacon@....com,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     alex.williamson@...hat.com, mark.rutland@....com,
        rjw@...ysocki.net, robdclark@...il.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org, sboyd@...nel.org,
        tfiga@...omium.org, jcrouse@...eaurora.org,
        sricharan@...eaurora.org, m.szyprowski@...sung.com,
        architt@...eaurora.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 5/5] iommu/arm-smmu: Add support for qcom,smmu-v2
 variant

On 30/08/18 15:45, Vivek Gautam wrote:
> qcom,smmu-v2 is an arm,smmu-v2 implementation with specific
> clock and power requirements.
> On msm8996, multiple cores, viz. mdss, video, etc. use this
> smmu. On sdm845, this smmu is used with gpu.
> Add bindings for the same.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@...eaurora.org>
> Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
> Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <tfiga@...omium.org>
> Tested-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
> ---
>   drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c | 13 +++++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
> index 166c8c6da24f..411e5ac57c64 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
> @@ -119,6 +119,7 @@ enum arm_smmu_implementation {
>   	GENERIC_SMMU,
>   	ARM_MMU500,
>   	CAVIUM_SMMUV2,
> +	QCOM_SMMUV2,

Hmm, it seems we don't actually need this right now, but maybe that just 
means there's more imp-def registers and/or errata to come ;)

Either way I guess there's no real harm in having it.

Reviewed-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>

>   };
>   
>   struct arm_smmu_s2cr {
> @@ -1970,6 +1971,17 @@ ARM_SMMU_MATCH_DATA(arm_mmu401, ARM_SMMU_V1_64K, GENERIC_SMMU);
>   ARM_SMMU_MATCH_DATA(arm_mmu500, ARM_SMMU_V2, ARM_MMU500);
>   ARM_SMMU_MATCH_DATA(cavium_smmuv2, ARM_SMMU_V2, CAVIUM_SMMUV2);
>   
> +static const char * const qcom_smmuv2_clks[] = {
> +	"bus", "iface",
> +};
> +
> +static const struct arm_smmu_match_data qcom_smmuv2 = {
> +	.version = ARM_SMMU_V2,
> +	.model = QCOM_SMMUV2,
> +	.clks = qcom_smmuv2_clks,
> +	.num_clks = ARRAY_SIZE(qcom_smmuv2_clks),
> +};
> +
>   static const struct of_device_id arm_smmu_of_match[] = {
>   	{ .compatible = "arm,smmu-v1", .data = &smmu_generic_v1 },
>   	{ .compatible = "arm,smmu-v2", .data = &smmu_generic_v2 },
> @@ -1977,6 +1989,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id arm_smmu_of_match[] = {
>   	{ .compatible = "arm,mmu-401", .data = &arm_mmu401 },
>   	{ .compatible = "arm,mmu-500", .data = &arm_mmu500 },
>   	{ .compatible = "cavium,smmu-v2", .data = &cavium_smmuv2 },
> +	{ .compatible = "qcom,smmu-v2", .data = &qcom_smmuv2 },
>   	{ },
>   };
>   MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, arm_smmu_of_match);
>