Hi Vivek,

On 7/13/2017 10:43 AM, Vivek Gautam wrote:

Hi Stephen,


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

quoted

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?

 Apart from the locking, wonder why a explicit pm_runtime is needed
 from unmap. Somehow looks like some path in the master using that
 should have enabled the pm ?

Regards,
 Sricharan

-- 
"QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus