[PATCH V4 3/6] iommu/arm-smmu: Invoke pm_runtime during probe, add/remove device
Vivek Gautam
vivek.gautam at codeaurora.org
Wed Jul 12 22:13:59 PDT 2017
Hi Stephen,
On 07/13/2017 04:24 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 07/06, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>> @@ -1231,12 +1237,18 @@ static int arm_smmu_map(struct iommu_domain *domain, unsigned long iova,
>> static size_t arm_smmu_unmap(struct iommu_domain *domain, unsigned long iova,
>> size_t size)
>> {
>> - struct io_pgtable_ops *ops = to_smmu_domain(domain)->pgtbl_ops;
>> + struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain = to_smmu_domain(domain);
>> + struct io_pgtable_ops *ops = smmu_domain->pgtbl_ops;
>> + size_t ret;
>>
>> if (!ops)
>> return 0;
>>
>> - return ops->unmap(ops, iova, size);
>> + pm_runtime_get_sync(smmu_domain->smmu->dev);
> Can these map/unmap ops be called from an atomic context? I seem
> to recall that being a problem before.
That's something which was dropped in the following patch merged in master:
523d7423e21b iommu/arm-smmu: Remove io-pgtable spinlock
Looks like we don't need locks here anymore?
Best Regards
Vivek
>
>
>> + ret = ops->unmap(ops, iova, size);
>> + pm_runtime_put_sync(smmu_domain->smmu->dev);
>> +
>> + return ret;
>> }
>>
>> static phys_addr_t arm_smmu_iova_to_phys_hard(struct iommu_domain *domain,
--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list