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

[Bibek Kumar Patro]

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?

Thanks,
Bibek