[PATCH v7 3/5] iommu/arm-smmu: introduction of ACTLR for custom prefetcher settings

[Bibek Kumar Patro]

On 1/12/2024 3:31 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/11/24 19:09, Bibek Kumar Patro wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/10/2024 11:26 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/10/24 13:55, Bibek Kumar Patro wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> By the way, we can refactor this:
>>>
>>> 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;
>>>          }
>>>      }
>>> }
>>>
>>> into
>>>
>>> // add const u8 num_actlrcfgs to struct actrl_variant to
>>> // save on sentinel space:
>>> //   sizeof(u8) < sizeof(ptr) + sizeof(resource_size_t)
>>>
>>
>> Git it, Would it be better to add this in struct qcom_smmu_match_data ?
> 
> Yes, right.
> 

Actually, I noticed now, we can do both the actlr_config (num_actlrcfg 
is used) and actlr_var (num_smmu is used) in the similar by storing the 
number of elements in each of them.
something like this:

+static const struct actlr_config sc7280_apps_actlr_cfg[] = {
+	{ 0x0800, 0x24e1, PREFETCH_DEFAULT | CMTLB },
+	{ 0x2000, 0x0163, PREFETCH_DEFAULT | CMTLB },
+	{ 0x2080, 0x0461, PREFETCH_DEFAULT | CMTLB },
+	{ 0x2100, 0x0161, PREFETCH_DEFAULT | CMTLB },
+	{ 0x0900, 0x0407, PREFETCH_SHALLOW | CPRE | CMTLB },
+	{ 0x2180, 0x0027, PREFETCH_SHALLOW | CPRE | CMTLB },
+	{ 0x1000, 0x07ff, PREFETCH_DEEP | CPRE | CMTLB },
+};
+
+static const struct actlr_config sc7280_gfx_actlr_cfg[] = {
+	{ 0x0000, 0x07ff, PREFETCH_SWITCH_GFX | PREFETCH_DEEP | CPRE | CMTLB },
+};
+
+static const struct actlr_variant sc7280_actlr[] = {
+	{ .io_start = 0x15000000, .actlrcfg = sc7280_apps_actlr_cfg, 
.num_actlrcfg = 7 },
+	{ .io_start = 0x03da0000, .actlrcfg = sc7280_gfx_actlr_cfg, 
.num_actlrcfg = 1 },
+};
+
  static const struct actlr_config sm8550_apps_actlr_cfg[] = {
  	{ 0x18a0, 0x0000, PREFETCH_SHALLOW | CPRE | CMTLB },
  	{ 0x18e0, 0x0000, PREFETCH_SHALLOW | CPRE | CMTLB },
@@ -661,6 +680,13 @@ static const struct qcom_smmu_match_data 
sdm845_smmu_500_data = {
  	/* Also no debug configuration. */
  };

+static const struct qcom_smmu_match_data sc7280_smmu_500_impl0_data = {
+	.impl = &qcom_smmu_500_impl,
+	.adreno_impl = &qcom_adreno_smmu_500_impl,
+	.cfg = &qcom_smmu_impl0_cfg,
+	.actlrvar = sc7280_actlr,
+	.num_smmu = 2,
+};

Just for note , there's a small hiccup here as we have to manually
calculate and the number of elements in actlr_config size everytime we
add this info for a new target, won't be an issue though but just a
hindrance to automation (?)

>> Posted a sample below.
>>
>>>
>>> [declarations]
>>> const struct actlr_variant *actlrvar = qsmmu->data->actlrvar;
>>> int i;
>>>
>>> [rest of the functions]
>>>
>>> if (!actlrvar)
>>>      return 0;
>>>  > for (i = 0; i < actrlvar->num_actrlcfgs; i++) {
>>>      if (actlrvar[i].io_start == smmu->ioaddr) {
>>>          qcom_smmu_set_actlr(dev, smmu, cbndx, actlrvar->actlrcfg);
>>>          break;
>>>      }
>>> }
>>>  > Saving both on .TEXT size and indentation levels :)
>>>
>> Thanks for this suggestion Konrad, will try to implement this, as it 
>> would reduce the indent levels to good extent.
>> Would something like this be okay?
>>
>> static int qcom_smmu_init_context(struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain,
>>       struct qcom_smmu *qsmmu = to_qcom_smmu(smmu);
>>       const struct actlr_variant *actlrvar;
>>       int cbndx = smmu_domain->cfg.cbndx;
>> +    int i;
>>
>> +    actlrvar = qsmmu->data->actlrvar;
>> +
>> +    if (!actlrvar)
>> +        goto end;
>> +
>> +    for (i = 0; i < qsmmu->data->num_smmu ; i++) {
>> +        if (actlrvar[i].io_start == smmu->ioaddr) {
>> +            qcom_smmu_set_actlr(dev, smmu, cbndx,
>> +                        actlrvar[i].actlrcfg);
>> +            break;
>>           }
>>       }
>>
>> +end:
>>       smmu_domain->cfg.flush_walk_prefer_tlbiasid = true;
> 
> If you move this assignment before the actlrvar checking (there's no
> dependency between them), you will get rid of the goto.
> 

Ack thanks, it's tlb flush operation so won't be an issue moving this
before the check.

> I also noticed that qcom_smmu_match_data.actlrvar could likely be
> const struct actlr_variant * const (const pointer to a const
> resource), similarly for actlr_variant.actlrcfg
> 

Sure, make sense, as we aren't aiming to modify these values later on.

Would address all these inputs in next version.

Thanks & regards,
Bibek

> Konrad