[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BYAPR12MB27106B630A0E1A2A0CBC79D9B3BD0@BYAPR12MB2710.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 19:00:05 +0000
From: Krishna Reddy <vdumpa@...dia.com>
To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
CC: "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>,
"Yu-Huan Hsu" <YHsu@...dia.com>, Sachin Nikam <Snikam@...dia.com>,
Pritesh Raithatha <praithatha@...dia.com>,
Timo Alho <talho@...dia.com>,
Alexander Van Brunt <avanbrunt@...dia.com>,
"Thomas Zeng (SW-TEGRA)" <thomasz@...dia.com>,
"olof@...om.net" <olof@...om.net>,
Juha Tukkinen <jtukkinen@...dia.com>,
Mikko Perttunen <mperttunen@...dia.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
"will.deacon@....com" <will.deacon@....com>,
"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 3/7] iommu/arm-smmu: Add tlb_sync implementation hook
>Wouldn't it work if you replaced all calls of __arm_smmu_tlb_sync() by
>smmu->impl->tlb_sync() and assign __arm_smmu_tlb_sync() as default for
>devices that don't need to override it? That makes this patch slightly larger, but it saves us one level of indirection.
The tlb_ops->tlb_sync can be overridden directly in arm-smmu-nvidia.c specific implementation as pointed by Robin. Will be updating in next patch.
>> + void (*tlb_sync)(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, int page, int sync,
>> + int status);
>Can't page, sync and status all be unsigned?
This is to be uniform with original tlb_sync definition is arm-smmu.c. Anyway, this hook is not necessary as tlb_ops->tlb_sync can be overridden directly.
-KR
Powered by blists - more mailing lists