[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230810143448.GB5795@willie-the-truck>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2023 15:34:49 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To: Michael Shavit <mshavit@...gle.com>
Cc: iommu@...ts.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, robin.murphy@....com,
nicolinc@...dia.com, jgg@...dia.com, jean-philippe@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 6/9] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Move CD table to
arm_smmu_master
On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 05:45:03PM +0800, Michael Shavit wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 9:50 PM Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 01:12:02AM +0800, Michael Shavit wrote:
> > > @@ -2203,7 +2186,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_domain_finalise(struct iommu_domain *domain,
> > > ias = min_t(unsigned long, ias, VA_BITS);
> > > oas = smmu->ias;
> > > fmt = ARM_64_LPAE_S1;
> > > - finalise_stage_fn = arm_smmu_domain_finalise_s1;
> > > + finalise_stage_fn = arm_smmu_domain_finalise_cd;
> >
> > Why is this a better name? Now we have inconsistency with
> > arm_smmu_domain_finalise_s2().
>
> There was a time where s1cfg represented the entire STE and carried
> the entire cd table. We've gotten rid of s1cfg, and now only store
> arm_smmu_ctx_desc in the arm_smmu_domain for stage 1 domains.
> arm_smmu_domain_finalise_cd is IMO more clear, especially given the
> historical baggage around `s1`.
Ok, but it's the inconsistency I object to. I don't think it's clear at
all to have arm_smmu_domain_finalise_cd() and arm_smmu_domain_finalise_s2().
The easiest thing is to leave it as-is.
Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists