[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4a595815-7fcc-47e2-b22c-dac349af6d79@quicinc.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 18:25:24 +0530
From: Bibek Kumar Patro <quic_bibekkum@...cinc.com>
To: Pavan Kondeti <quic_pkondeti@...cinc.com>
CC: <will@...nel.org>, <robin.murphy@....com>, <joro@...tes.org>,
<dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>, <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
<jsnitsel@...hat.com>, <quic_bjorande@...cinc.com>, <mani@...nel.org>,
<quic_eberman@...cinc.com>, <robdclark@...omium.org>,
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>, <robh@...nel.org>,
<vladimir.oltean@....com>, <quic_molvera@...cinc.com>,
<linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <qipl.kernel.upstream@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/5] iommu/arm-smmu: introduction of ACTLR for custom
prefetcher settings
On 1/10/2024 4:46 PM, Bibek Kumar Patro wrote:
>
>
> On 1/10/2024 9:36 AM, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
[...]
>>> @@ -274,6 +321,21 @@ static const struct of_device_id
>>> qcom_smmu_client_of_match[] __maybe_unused = {
>>> static int qcom_smmu_init_context(struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain,
>>> struct io_pgtable_cfg *pgtbl_cfg, struct device *dev)
>>> {
>>> + struct arm_smmu_device *smmu = smmu_domain->smmu;
>>> + struct qcom_smmu *qsmmu = to_qcom_smmu(smmu);
>>> + const struct actlr_variant *actlrvar;
>>> + int cbndx = smmu_domain->cfg.cbndx;
>>> +
>>> + if (qsmmu->data->actlrvar) {
>>> + actlrvar = qsmmu->data->actlrvar;
>>> + for (; actlrvar->io_start; actlrvar++) {
>>> + if (actlrvar->io_start == smmu->ioaddr) {
>>> + qcom_smmu_set_actlr(dev, smmu, cbndx,
>>> actlrvar->actlrcfg);
>>> + break;
>>> + }
>>> + }
>>> + }
>>> +
>>
>> This block and the one in qcom_adreno_smmu_init_context() are exactly
>> the same. Possible to do some refactoring?
>>
>
> I will check if this repeated blocks can be accomodated this into
> qcom_smmu_set_actlr function if that would be fine.
>
Also adding to this, this might increase the number of indentation
inside qcom_smmu_set_actlr as well, to around 5. So wouldn't this
be an issue?
Thanks,
Bibek
Powered by blists - more mailing lists