[PATCH v6 1/8] iommu: provide early initialisation hook for IOMMU drivers

Grant Likely grant.likely at linaro.org
Fri Dec 5 05:06:52 PST 2014

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy at arm.com> wrote:
> Hi Will,
> On 05/12/14 12:10, Will Deacon wrote:
> [...]
>>>> Do you expect drivers to modify that *priv pointer after the ops
>>>> structure is registered? I'd be very surprised if that was the use
>>>> case. It's fine for the driver to register a non-const version, but
>>>> once it is registered, the infrastructure can treat it as const from
>>>> then on.
>>> Possibly not - certainly my current port of the ARM SMMU which makes use
>>> of *priv is only ever reading it - although we did also wave around
>>> reasons for mutable ops like dynamically changing the pgsize_bitmap and
>>> possibly even swizzling individual ops for runtime reconfiguration. On
>>> consideration though, I'd agree that things like that are mad enough to
>>> stay well within individual drivers if they did ever happen, and
>>> certainly shouldn't apply to this bit of the infrastructure at any rate.
>> I certainly need to update the pgsize_bitmap at runtime because I don't
>> know the supported page sizes until I've both (a) probed the hardware
>> and (b) allocated page tables for a domain. We've already discussed
>> moving the pgsize_bitmap out of the ops, but moving it somewhere where
>> it remains const doesn't really help.
> We can safely cast the call to get_ops in the SMMU driver though, since
> we'll know that we put a mutable per-instance ops in there in the first
> place. At least that way drivers that aren't taking advantage and just pass
> their static const ops around shouldn't provoke warnings. I deliberately
> didn't touch anything beyond get_ops as that would be too disruptive.
>> Can I just take the patch that Grant acked, in the interest of getting
>> something merged? As you say, there's plenty of planned changes in this
>> area anyway. I plan to send Olof a pull request this afternoon.
> Grant, Thierry? Personally I'm not fussed either way - the sooner something
> goes in, the sooner I can carry on working at replacing it :D

I've already acked it. Why are we still talking about it?  :-D


More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list