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?