On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Rob Clark <robdcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:59 PM, Tomasz Figa <tf...@chromium.org> wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:03 AM, Rob Clark <robdcl...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 4:10 AM, Tomasz Figa <tf...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>> Hi Vivek, >>>> >>>> Thanks for the patch. Please see my comments inline. >>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 7:31 PM, Vivek Gautam >>>> <vivek.gau...@codeaurora.org> wrote: >>>>> While handling the concerned iommu, there should not be a >>>>> need to power control the drm devices from iommu interface. >>>>> If these drm devices need to be powered around this time, >>>>> the respective drivers should take care of this. >>>>> >>>>> Replace the pm_runtime_get/put_sync(<drm_device>) with >>>>> pm_runtime_get/put_suppliers(<drm_device>) calls, to power-up >>>>> the connected iommu through the device link interface. >>>>> In case the device link is not setup these get/put_suppliers() >>>>> calls will be a no-op, and the iommu driver should take care of >>>>> powering on its devices accordingly. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <vivek.gau...@codeaurora.org> >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_iommu.c | 16 ++++++++-------- >>>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_iommu.c >>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_iommu.c >>>>> index b23d33622f37..1ab629bbee69 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_iommu.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_iommu.c >>>>> @@ -40,9 +40,9 @@ static int msm_iommu_attach(struct msm_mmu *mmu, const >>>>> char * const *names, >>>>> struct msm_iommu *iommu = to_msm_iommu(mmu); >>>>> int ret; >>>>> >>>>> - pm_runtime_get_sync(mmu->dev); >>>>> + pm_runtime_get_suppliers(mmu->dev); >>>>> ret = iommu_attach_device(iommu->domain, mmu->dev); >>>>> - pm_runtime_put_sync(mmu->dev); >>>>> + pm_runtime_put_suppliers(mmu->dev); >>>> >>>> For me, it looks like a wrong place to handle runtime PM of IOMMU >>>> here. iommu_attach_device() calls into IOMMU driver's attach_device() >>>> callback and that's where necessary runtime PM gets should happen, if >>>> any. In other words, driver A (MSM DRM driver) shouldn't be dealing >>>> with power state of device controlled by driver B (ARM SMMU). >>> >>> Note that we end up having to do the same, because of iommu_unmap() >>> while DRM driver is powered off.. it might be cleaner if it was all >>> self contained in the iommu driver, but that would make it so other >>> drivers couldn't call iommu_unmap() from an irq handler, which is >>> apparently something that some of them want to do.. >> >> I'd assume that runtime PM status is already guaranteed to be active >> when the IRQ handler is running, by some other means (e.g. >> pm_runtime_get_sync() called earlier, when queuing some work to the >> hardware). Otherwise, I'm not sure how a powered down device could >> trigger an IRQ. >> >> So, if the master device power is already on, suppliers should be >> powered on as well, thanks to device links. >> > > umm, that is kindof the inverse of the problem.. the problem is > things like gpu driver (and v4l2 drivers that import dma-buf's, > afaict).. they will potentially call iommu->unmap() when device is not > active (due to userspace or things beyond the control of the driver).. > so *they* would want iommu to do pm get/put calls.
Which is fine and which is actually already done by one of the patches in this series, not for map/unmap, but probe, add_device, remove_device. Having parts of the API doing it inside the callback and other parts outside sounds at least inconsistent. > But other drivers > trying to unmap from irq ctx would not. Which is the contradictory > requirement that lead to the idea of iommu user powering up iommu for > unmap. Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. My last message was supposed to show that it's not contradictory at all, because "other drivers trying to unmap from irq ctx" would already have called pm_runtime_get_*() earlier from a non-irq ctx, which would have also done the same on all the linked suppliers, including the IOMMU. The ultimate result would be that the map/unmap() of the IOMMU driver calling pm_runtime_get_sync() would do nothing besides incrementing the reference count. > > There has already been some discussion about this on various earlier > permutations of this patchset. I think we have exhausted all other > options. I guess I should have read those. Let me do that now. Best regards, Tomasz _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list email@example.com https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu