[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b353b3f0-ee7f-f777-4d38-c595bc990564@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 11:23:30 +0100
From: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
To: Krishna Reddy <vdumpa@...dia.com>,
Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@...il.com>
CC: "joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
"will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
"robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>,
"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>,
Bitan Biswas <bbiswas@...dia.com>,
Mikko Perttunen <mperttunen@...dia.com>,
Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>,
Bryan Huntsman <bhuntsman@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/3] iommu/arm-smmu: add NVIDIA implementation for dual
ARM MMU-500 usage
On 29/06/2020 23:49, Krishna Reddy wrote:
>>> + 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()?
>
> smmu->base is not available during nvidia_smmu_impl_init() call. It is set afterwards in arm-smmu.c.
> It can't be avoided without changing the devm_ioremap() and impl_init() call order in arm-smmu.c.
Why don't we move the call to devm_ioremap_resource() to before
arm_smmu_impl_init() in arm_smmu_device_probe()? From a quick look I
don't see why we cannot do this and seems better than what we are
currently doing which is quite confusing and hard to understand.
Jon
--
nvpublic
Powered by blists - more mailing lists