Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] iommu/arm-smmu: add ACTLR data and support for SM8550

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 at 12:37, Bibek Kumar Patro
<quic_bibekkum@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/19/2023 3:51 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 at 10:25, Bibek Kumar Patro
> > <quic_bibekkum@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 12/18/2023 7:51 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >>> On 18/12/2023 13:23, Bibek Kumar Patro wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 12/16/2023 9:45 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >>>>> On 16/12/2023 02:03, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> >>>>>> On 15.12.2023 13:54, Robin Murphy wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 2023-12-15 12:20 pm, Bibek Kumar Patro wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 12/15/2023 4:14 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 at 12:19, Bibek Kumar Patro
> >>>>>>>>> <quic_bibekkum@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Add ACTLR data table for SM8550 along with support for
> >>>>>>>>>> same including SM8550 specific implementation operations.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bibek Kumar Patro <quic_bibekkum@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>>>>     drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c | 89
> >>>>>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>>>>>>>     1 file changed, 89 insertions(+)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c
> >>>>>>>>>> b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c
> >>>>>>>>>> index cb49291f5233..d2006f610243 100644
> >>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c
> >>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c
> >>>>>>>>>> @@ -20,6 +20,85 @@ struct actlr_config {
> >>>>>>>>>>            u32 actlr;
> >>>>>>>>>>     };
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> +/*
> >>>>>>>>>> + * SMMU-500 TRM defines BIT(0) as CMTLB (Enable context caching
> >>>>>>>>>> in the
> >>>>>>>>>> + * macro TLB) and BIT(1) as CPRE (Enable context caching in the
> >>>>>>>>>> prefetch
> >>>>>>>>>> + * buffer). The remaining bits are implementation defined and
> >>>>>>>>>> vary across
> >>>>>>>>>> + * SoCs.
> >>>>>>>>>> + */
> >>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>> +#define PREFETCH_DEFAULT       0
> >>>>>>>>>> +#define PREFETCH_SHALLOW       BIT(8)
> >>>>>>>>>> +#define PREFETCH_MODERATE      BIT(9)
> >>>>>>>>>> +#define PREFETCH_DEEP          (BIT(9) | BIT(8))
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I thin the following might be more correct:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> #include <linux/bitfield.h>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> #define PREFETCH_MASK GENMASK(9, 8)
> >>>>>>>>> #define PREFETCH_DEFAULT FIELD_PREP(PREFETCH_MASK, 0)
> >>>>>>>>> #define PREFETCH_SHALLOW FIELD_PREP(PREFETCH_MASK, 1)
> >>>>>>>>> #define PREFETCH_MODERATE FIELD_PREP(PREFETCH_MASK, 2)
> >>>>>>>>> #define PREFETCH_DEEP FIELD_PREP(PREFETCH_MASK, 3)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Ack, thanks for this suggestion. Let me try this out using
> >>>>>>>> GENMASK. Once tested, will take care of this in next version.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> FWIW the more typical usage would be to just define the named
> >>>>>>> macros for the raw field values, then put the FIELD_PREP() at the
> >>>>>>> point of use. However in this case that's liable to get pretty
> >>>>>>> verbose, so although I'm usually a fan of bitfield.h, the most
> >>>>>>> readable option here might actually be to stick with simpler
> >>>>>>> definitions of "(0 << 8)", "(1 << 8)", etc. However it's not really
> >>>>>>> a big deal either way, and I defer to whatever Dmitry and Konrad
> >>>>>>> prefer, since they're the ones looking after arm-smmu-qcom the most :)
> >>>>>> My 5 cents would be to just use the "common" style of doing this, so:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> #define ACTRL_PREFETCH    GENMASK(9, 8)
> >>>>>>    #define PREFETCH_DEFAULT 0
> >>>>>>    #define PREFETCH_SHALLOW 1
> >>>>>>    #define PREFETCH_MODERATE 2
> >>>>>>    #define PREFETCH_DEEP 3
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> and then use
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> | FIELD_PREP(ACTRL_PREFETCH, PREFETCH_x)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> it can get verbose, but.. arguably that's good, since you really want
> >>>>>> to make sure the right bits are set here
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sounds good to me.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Konrad, Dimitry, just checked FIELD_PREP() implementation
> >>>>
> >>>> #define FIELD_FIT(_mask, _val)
> >>>> ({                                                              \
> >>>>                    __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, 0ULL, _val, "FIELD_PREP: ");  \
> >>>>                    ((typeof(_mask))(_val) << __bf_shf(_mask)) & (_mask); \
> >>>> })
> >>>>
> >>>> since it is defined as a block, it won't be possible to use FIELD_PREP
> >>>> in macro or as a structure value, and can only be used inside a
> >>>> block/function. Orelse would show compilation errors as following
> >>>>
> >>>> kernel/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c:94:20: note: in
> >>>> expansion of macro 'PREFETCH_SHALLOW'
> >>>>     { 0x1947, 0x0000, PREFETCH_SHALLOW | CPRE | CMTLB },
> >>>>                       ^
> >>>> kernel/include/linux/bitfield.h:113:2: error: braced-group within
> >>>> expression allowed only inside a function
> >>>>     ({        \
> >>>>     ^
> >>>>
> >>>> So as per my understanding I think, we might need to go ahead with the
> >>>> generic implementation only. Let me know if I missed something.
> >>>
> >>> Then anyway (foo << bar) is better compared to BIT(n) | BIT(m).
> >>>
> >>
> >> Sure Dmitry, (foo << bar) would be simpler as well as Robin mentioned
> >> earlier in his reply.
> >> I can implement the defines as:
> >>
> >> #define PREFETCH_DEFAULT       0
> >> #define PREFETCH_SHALLOW       (1 << 8)
> >> #define PREFETCH_MODERATE      (1 << 9)
> >
> > 2 << 8. Isn't that hard.
> >
>
> Ah, right. This is nice! .
> Will use 2 << 8 instead. Thanks for the suggestion.

It might still be useful to define the PREFETCH_SHIFT equal to 8.

>
> Thanks,
> Bibek
>
> >> #define PREFETCH_DEEP          (3 << 8)
> >>
> >> This should be okay I think ?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Bibek
> >>
> >
> >



-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry