Hi Stephen,


On 07/13/2017 04:24 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:

On 07/06, Vivek Gautam wrote:

quoted

@@ -1231,12 +1237,18 @@ static int arm_smmu_map(struct iommu_domain *domain, unsigned long iova,
  static size_t arm_smmu_unmap(struct iommu_domain *domain, unsigned long iova,
  			     size_t size)
  {
-	struct io_pgtable_ops *ops = to_smmu_domain(domain)->pgtbl_ops;
+	struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain = to_smmu_domain(domain);
+	struct io_pgtable_ops *ops = smmu_domain->pgtbl_ops;
+	size_t ret;
  
  	if (!ops)
  		return 0;
  
-	return ops->unmap(ops, iova, size);
+	pm_runtime_get_sync(smmu_domain->smmu->dev);

Can these map/unmap ops be called from an atomic context? I seem
to recall that being a problem before.

That's something which was dropped in the following patch merged in master:
523d7423e21b iommu/arm-smmu: Remove io-pgtable spinlock

Looks like we don't  need locks here anymore?

Best Regards
Vivek

quoted

+	ret = ops->unmap(ops, iova, size);
+	pm_runtime_put_sync(smmu_domain->smmu->dev);
+
+	return ret;
  }
  
  static phys_addr_t arm_smmu_iova_to_phys_hard(struct iommu_domain *domain,

-- 
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project