[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20260126210833.GA1134360@nvidia.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2026 17:08:33 -0400
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
Cc: will@...nel.org, robin.murphy@....com, joro@...tes.org, jpb@...nel.org,
praan@...gle.com, miko.lenczewski@....com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/10] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Flush iotlb in
arm_smmu_iotlb_tag_free()
On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 05:24:23PM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> static void arm_smmu_iotlb_tag_free(struct arm_smmu_inv *tag)
> {
> + struct arm_smmu_cmdq_ent cmd = {
> + .opcode = tag->nsize_opcode,
> + };
> +
> + if (tag->type == INV_TYPE_S1_ASID)
> + cmd.tlbi.asid = tag->id;
> + else
> + cmd.tlbi.vmid = tag->id;
> + arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmd_with_sync(tag->smmu, &cmd);
I think in all these places checking the tag->type it is probably a
good idea to not use a catch all else for vmid? We have many tag types
and some should never come to this, or other, functions.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists