[PATCH v2 2/6] iommu/arm-smmu: Add interconnect bandwidth voting support

[Bibek Kumar Patro]

On 6/16/2026 5:51 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2026 at 06:36:51PM +0530, Bibek Kumar Patro wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 6/8/2026 7:25 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 08:12:03PM +0530, Bibek Kumar Patro wrote:
>>>> On some SoCs the SMMU registers require an active interconnect
>>>> bandwidth vote to be accessible. While other clients typically
>>>> satisfy this requirement implicitly, certain corner cases (e.g.
>>>> during sleep/wakeup transitions) can leave the SMMU without a
>>>> vote, causing intermittent register access failures.
>>>>
>>>> Add support for an optional interconnect path to the arm-smmu
>>>> driver and vote for bandwidth while the SMMU is active. The path
>>>> is acquired from DT if present and ignored otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> The bandwidth vote is enabled before accessing SMMU registers
>>>> during probe and runtime resume, and released during runtime
>>>> suspend and on error paths.
>>>>
>>>> Generally, from an architectural perspective, GEM_NOC and DDR are
>>>> expected to have an active vote whenever the adreno_smmu block is
>>>> powered on. In most common use cases, this requirement is implicitly
>>>> satisfied because other GPU-related clients (for example, the GMU
>>>> device) already hold a GEM_NOC vote when adreno_smmu is enabled.
>>>>
>>>> However, there are certain corner cases, such as during sleep/wakeup
>>>> transitions, where the GEM_NOC vote can be removed before adreno_smmu
>>>> is powered down. If adreno_smmu is then accessed while the interconnect
>>>> vote is missing, it can lead to the observed failures. Because of the
>>>> precise ordering involved, this scenario is difficult to reproduce
>>>> consistently.
>>>> (also GDSC is involved in adreno usecases can have an independent vote)
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Bibek Kumar Patro <bibek.patro at oss.qualcomm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>>    drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.h |  2 ++
>>>>    2 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c
>>>> index 0bd21d206eb3e75c3b9fb1364cdc92e82c5aa499..07c7e44ec6a5bd1488f00f87d859a20495e46601 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c
>>>> @@ -53,6 +53,11 @@
>>>>    #define MSI_IOVA_BASE			0x8000000
>>>>    #define MSI_IOVA_LENGTH			0x100000
>>>> +/* Interconnect bandwidth vote values for the SMMU register access path */
>>>> +#define ARM_SMMU_ICC_AVG_BW		0
>>>> +#define ARM_SMMU_ICC_PEAK_BW_HIGH	1000
>>>
>>> totally random numbers, which might be different for non-Qualcomm platform.
>>>
>>
>> Ideally, any non-zero value would be enough to keep the path active.
> 
> This is true for Qualcomm devices. However, you are adding this to a
> generic code.
> 
>> Here 1 Would be enough to keep the path active, but might be too small to
>> reliably keep the bus active.
>> Other is UINT_MAX, which will reliably keep the bus active but might cause a
>> power penalty.
>>
>> #define ARM_SMMU_ICC_PEAK_BW_HIGH	UINT_MAX
>>
>> seems to be suitable here to reliably keep the bus active by BCM
>> for both Qualcomm and non-Qualcomm platforms (with some power penalty).
>>
>> LMK, if you feel otherwise.
> 
> Shift it to the qcom instance or provide platform-specific values? (My
> preference would be towards the first solution).
> 


To support platform-specific values, we may need to introduce a 
LUT-based approach in the driver. (Bandwidth voting values cannot be 
placed in device-tree property IIRC ?)

Currently, all Qualcomm platforms use 0x1000 for SMMU ICC voting. I
can evaluate if this could be moved to a Qualcomm-specific
implementation.

To clarify, this applies only to the bandwidth values.
Since the ICC path itself can remain part of struct arm_smmu_device, 
similar to clocks and IRQs, as it represents common infrastructure 
required for the SMMU device.

Thanks & regards,
Bibek


>>
>>
>>>> +#define ARM_SMMU_ICC_PEAK_BW_LOW	0
>>>> +
>>>>    static int force_stage;
>>>>    module_param(force_stage, int, S_IRUGO);
>>>>    MODULE_PARM_DESC(force_stage,
>