Re: [RESEND PATCH v17 5/5] iommu/arm-smmu: Add support for qcom,smmu-v2 variant

[Vivek Gautam]

Hi Thor,


On 11/26/2018 8:11 PM, Thor Thayer wrote:
> Hi Vivek,
>
> On 11/26/18 4:55 AM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
> > On 11/24/2018 12:04 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 03:06:29PM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 2:52 PM Tomasz Figa <tfiga@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 6:13 PM Vivek Gautam
> > > > > <vivek.gautam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:09 PM Will Deacon 
> > > > > > <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 04:54:30PM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
> > > > > > > > @@ -2026,6 +2027,17 @@ ARM_SMMU_MATCH_DATA(arm_mmu401, 
> > > > > > > > ARM_SMMU_V1_64K, GENERIC_SMMU);
> > > > > > > > Â ARM_SMMU_MATCH_DATA(arm_mmu500, ARM_SMMU_V2, ARM_MMU500);
> > > > > > > > Â ARM_SMMU_MATCH_DATA(cavium_smmuv2, ARM_SMMU_V2, CAVIUM_SMMUV2);
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +static const char * const qcom_smmuv2_clks[] = {
> > > > > > > > +ÂÂÂÂ "bus", "iface",
> > > > > > > > +};
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +static const struct arm_smmu_match_data qcom_smmuv2 = {
> > > > > > > > +ÂÂÂÂ .version = ARM_SMMU_V2,
> > > > > > > > +ÂÂÂÂ .model = QCOM_SMMUV2,
> > > > > > > > +ÂÂÂÂ .clks = qcom_smmuv2_clks,
> > > > > > > > +ÂÂÂÂ .num_clks = ARRAY_SIZE(qcom_smmuv2_clks),
> > > > > > > > +};
> > > > > > > These seems redundant if we go down the route proposed by Thor, 
> > > > > > > where we
> > > > > > > just pull all of the clocks out of the device-tree. In which 
> > > > > > > case, why
> > > > > > > do we need this match_data at all?
> > > > > > Which is better? Driver relying solely on the device tree to tell
> > > > > > which all clocks
> > > > > > are required to be enabled,
> > > > > > or, the driver deciding itself based on the platform's match data,
> > > > > > that it should
> > > > > > have X, Y, & Z clocks that should be supplied from the device tree.
> > > > > The former would simplify the driver, but would also make it
> > > > > impossible to spot mistakes in DT, which would ultimately surface out
> > > > > as very hard to debug bugs (likely complete system lockups).
> > > > Thanks.
> > > > Yea, this is how I understand things presently. Relying on device tree
> > > > puts the things out of driver's control.
> > > But it also has the undesirable effect of having to update the driver
> > > code whenever we want to add support for a new SMMU implementation. If
> > > we do this all in the DT, as Thor is trying to do, then older kernels
> > > will work well with new hardware.
> > >
> > > > Hi Will,
> > > > Am I unable to understand the intentions here for Thor's clock-fetch
> > > > design change?
> > > I'm having trouble parsing your question, sorry. Please work with Thor
> > > so that we have a single way to get the clock information. My 
> > > preference
> > > is to take it from the firmware, for the reason I stated above.
> > Hi Will,
> >
> > Sure, thanks. I will work with Thor to get this going.
> >
> > Hi Thor,
> > Does it sound okay to you to squash your patch [1] into my patch [2] 
> > with
> > your 'Signed-off-by' tag?
> > I will update the commit log to include the information about getting
> > clock details from device tree.
> >
> > [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10628725/
> > [2] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10686061/
>
> Yes, that would be great and easier to understand than my patch on top 
> of yours.
>
> Additionally, can you remove the "Error:" as Will requested as part of 
> the squash?

Thanks for your consent. I have reworked the patch today, and have 
addressed Will's
comment. I will give a try on the board and post it by tomorrow.

Best regards
Vivek

> Thank you!
>
> Thor
>
> > Best regards
> > Vivek
> > > Will