[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKHBV254QmO3iXyEL6w0PqvVofm_UCDd13LKmpbhU-cEORB5ww@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 01:15:14 +0800
From: Michael Shavit <mshavit@...gle.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
robin.murphy@....com, nicolinc@...dia.com, jean-philippe@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/9] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Replace s1_cfg with cdtab_cfg
> > > What dead code? Is the deal here that we keep the field, but still
> > > infer the value to write from (cd_table->l1_desc == null) in
> > > arm_smmu_write_strtab_ent??
> >
> > Keep the field and write it directly when populating the ste (i.e. don't
> > infer anything), but the field moves into 'struct arm_smmu_ctx_desc_cfg'.
>
> Yes - the 'dead code' is that we introduce storage for a field that is
> always a known constant (STRTAB_STE_0_S1FMT_64K_L2).
I'm not sure we're on the same page here. s1fmt could contain either
`STRTAB_STE_0_S1FMT_64K_L2` or `STRTAB_STE_0_S1FMT_LINEAR`, and this
value will be directly copied in arm_smmu_write_strtab_ent.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists