Hi Ritesh,
We have a hot plug bus architecture for the Layerscape SOCs. I am testing the 
patch specifically for this architecture on the AFM simulator.

Regards
Varun

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ritesh Harjani [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 10:00 PM
> To: Will Deacon
> Cc: Sethi Varun-B16395; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] iommu/arm: Add hotplugged devices support for
> arm-smmu.
> 
> Hi Varun,
> 
> How are you testing this patch of arm-smmu ?
> What is your test environment ?
> 
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Will Deacon <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hi Varun,
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 07:05:40PM +0000, Varun Sethi wrote:
> >> Currently the ARM SMMU driver only considers the bus master devices
> >> in the device tree. The master device and stream ID information is
> >> maintained per SMMU. Currently there is no mechanism for representing
> >> this information in case of PCI or hot plugged devices.
> >>
> >> This RFC patch proposes a mechanism for representing this information
> >> for hot plugged/PCI devices.
> >>
> >> Patch doesn't contain the add_device callback modification for hot
> plug devices.
> >> This would be bus specific and would be responsible for populating
> >> the hot plug devices masters list for the SMMU.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Varun Sethi <[email protected]>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c |   93
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >>  1 file changed, 90 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
> >> index 1d9ab39..6c10df4 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
> >> @@ -327,6 +327,9 @@ struct arm_smmu_master {
> >>        * SMMU chain.
> >>        */
> >>       struct rb_node                  node;
> >> +     /* Following fields correspond to the hot plug masters */
> >> +     struct list_head                        hotplug_masters_node;
> >> +     struct device                   *dev;
> >
> > I'd much rather have one list for all masters. Distinguishing between
> > masters and `hotplug masters' is unnecessary.
> >
> >> +static int is_device_hotplug(struct device *dev) {
> >> +     return (dev->bus != &platform_bus_type) &&
> >> +              (dev->bus != &amba_bustype); }
> >
> > I'm not fond of this. Why not rework what we currently have so that it
> > can work for other (hotpluggable) buses?
> >
> > Will
> > _______________________________________________
> > iommu mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
> 

_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu

Reply via email to