[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200629215124.GD27967@Asurada-Nvidia>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 14:51:24 -0700
From: Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@...il.com>
To: Krishna Reddy <vdumpa@...dia.com>
Cc: joro@...tes.org, will@...nel.org, robin.murphy@....com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, treding@...dia.com, yhsu@...dia.com,
snikam@...dia.com, praithatha@...dia.com, talho@...dia.com,
bbiswas@...dia.com, mperttunen@...dia.com, nicolinc@...dia.com,
bhuntsman@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/3] iommu/arm-smmu: add NVIDIA implementation for
dual ARM MMU-500 usage
On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 07:28:36PM -0700, Krishna Reddy wrote:
> NVIDIA's Tegra194 SoC uses two ARM MMU-500s together to interleave
> IOVA accesses across them.
> Add NVIDIA implementation for dual ARM MMU-500s and add new compatible
> string for Tegra194 SoC SMMU topology.
>
> Signed-off-by: Krishna Reddy <vdumpa@...dia.com>
> +static inline void __iomem *nvidia_smmu_page(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,
> + unsigned int inst, int page)
> +{
> + struct nvidia_smmu *nvidia_smmu = to_nvidia_smmu(smmu);
> +
> + if (!nvidia_smmu->bases[0])
> + nvidia_smmu->bases[0] = smmu->base;
> +
> + return nvidia_smmu->bases[inst] + (page << smmu->pgshift);
> +}
Not critical -- just a nit: why not put the bases[0] in init()?
Everything else looks good to me:
Reviewed-by: Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@...il.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists