On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 10:43:33AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:

On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 05:33:53PM +0800, Michael Shavit wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

Sounds a lot like the existing s1fmt field. Can we keep it?

If you are OK with the dead code, I don't object. But let's put it in
the struct arm_smmu_ctx_desc_cfg.

Ok, we have a deal!

What dead code? Is the deal here that we keep the field, but still
infer the value to write from (cd_table->l1_desc == null) in
arm_smmu_write_strtab_ent??

Keep the field and write it directly when populating the ste (i.e. don't
infer anything), but the field moves into 'struct arm_smmu_ctx_desc_cfg'.

Yes - the 'dead code' is that we introduce storage for a field that is
always a known constant (STRTAB_STE_0_S1FMT_64K_L2).

Jason

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel