[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1a1f9b11-5a6d-41f7-8bcd-533a61a27a65@quicinc.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 23:39:36 +0530
From: Bibek Kumar Patro <quic_bibekkum@...cinc.com>
To: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
Pavan Kondeti
<quic_pkondeti@...cinc.com>
CC: <will@...nel.org>, <robin.murphy@....com>, <joro@...tes.org>,
<dmitry.baryshkov@...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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/5] iommu/arm-smmu: introduction of ACTLR for custom
prefetcher settings
On 1/10/2024 11:26 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>
>
> On 1/10/24 13:55, Bibek Kumar Patro wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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?
>
> By the way, we can refactor this:
>
> 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;
> }
> }
> }
>
> into
>
> // add const u8 num_actlrcfgs to struct actrl_variant to
> // save on sentinel space:
> // sizeof(u8) < sizeof(ptr) + sizeof(resource_size_t)
>
Git it, Would it be better to add this in struct qcom_smmu_match_data ?
Posted a sample below.
>
> [declarations]
> const struct actlr_variant *actlrvar = qsmmu->data->actlrvar;
> int i;
>
> [rest of the functions]
>
> if (!actlrvar)
> return 0;
> > for (i = 0; i < actrlvar->num_actrlcfgs; i++) {
> if (actlrvar[i].io_start == smmu->ioaddr) {
> qcom_smmu_set_actlr(dev, smmu, cbndx, actlrvar->actlrcfg);
> break;
> }
> }
> > Saving both on .TEXT size and indentation levels :)
>
Thanks for this suggestion Konrad, will try to implement this, as it
would reduce the indent levels to good extent.
Would something like this be okay?
static int qcom_smmu_init_context(struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain,
struct qcom_smmu *qsmmu = to_qcom_smmu(smmu);
const struct actlr_variant *actlrvar;
int cbndx = smmu_domain->cfg.cbndx;
+ int i;
+ actlrvar = qsmmu->data->actlrvar;
+
+ if (!actlrvar)
+ goto end;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < qsmmu->data->num_smmu ; i++) {
+ if (actlrvar[i].io_start == smmu->ioaddr) {
+ qcom_smmu_set_actlr(dev, smmu, cbndx,
+ actlrvar[i].actlrcfg);
+ break;
}
}
+end:
smmu_domain->cfg.flush_walk_prefer_tlbiasid = true;
return 0;
Thanks & regards,
Bibek
> Konrad
Powered by blists - more mailing lists