On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 12:34:30 -0300
Ariel D'Alessandro <ariel.dalessan...@collabora.com> wrote:
> Hi Boris,
>
> On 2/27/25 11:55 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 15:30:42 -0300
> > Ariel D'Alessandro <ariel.dalessan...@collabora.com> wrote:
> >
> >> @@ -642,8 +713,15 @@ struct panfrost_mmu *panfrost_mmu_ctx_create(struct
> >> panfrost_device *pfdev)
> >> .iommu_dev = pfdev->dev,
> >> };
> >>
> >> - mmu->pgtbl_ops = alloc_io_pgtable_ops(ARM_MALI_LPAE, &mmu->pgtbl_cfg,
> >> - mmu);
> >> + if (panfrost_has_hw_feature(pfdev, HW_FEATURE_AARCH64_MMU)) {
> >> + fmt = ARM_64_LPAE_S1;
> >> + mmu->enable = mmu_lpae_s1_enable;
> >> + } else {
> >> + fmt = ARM_MALI_LPAE;
> >> + mmu->enable = mmu_mali_lpae_enable;
> >> + }
> >
> > How about we stick to the legacy pgtable format for all currently
> > supported GPUs, and make this an opt-in property attached to the
> > compatible. This way, we can progressively move away from the legacy
> > format once enough testing has been done, while allowing support for
> > GPUs that can't use the old format because the cachability/shareability
> > configuration is too limited.
>
> Indeed, that's a better way to go.
>
> Specifically, what you mean is: keep the same compatible string and add
> a new property to the `panfrost_compatible` private data for that
> specific variant?
Exactly.
