linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 4/6] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add CS_NONE quirk for CONFIG_TEGRA241

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZowpxohD0MMv/9z9@Asurada-Nvidia>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 11:02:46 -0700
From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
CC: <robin.murphy@....com>, <joro@...tes.org>, <jgg@...dia.com>,
	<thierry.reding@...il.com>, <vdumpa@...dia.com>, <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 4/6] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add CS_NONE quirk for
 CONFIG_TEGRA241_CMDQV

On Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 12:31:15PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > As for arm_smmu_cmdq_needs_busy_polling, it doesn't really look
> > > very optimal to me. But if you insist on having an smmu option,
> > > we still have to take in the PATCH-3 in this series, enforcing
> > > an arm_smmu_cmdq_build_sync_cmd() call in the IRQ handler too.
> > > So, it would eventually look like [attachment].
> >
> > Please ignore the attachment. Since we are adding arm_smmu_impl,
> > I figure that we could add an arm_smmu_cmdq_impl too. There's an
> > another small feature that I didn't implement in this v9, while
> > being able to benefit from a cmdq impl now.
> >
> > The impl can also hold a boolean busy_polling, so we won't need
> > a global smmu option.
> 
> So /that/ might be overkill. Architectural queues can use polling, so I
> don't mind having that option in the driver and it should keep the number
> of impl hooks to a minimum.

OK. Let's make an option as you suggested.

> > I will send a new version asap, though I am not sure if we can
> > still make it to this cycle that we hoped for :-/
> 
> I'm in fixes-only mode at this point, especially since we've not had a
> linux-next for a while.

Sad that we missed again. Thanks for letting me know that..

Nicolin