Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org 86BB2609A8
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v17 5/5] iommu/arm-smmu: Add support for
 qcom,smmu-v2 variant
To:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, thor.thayer@linux.intel.com
Cc:     Tomasz Figa <tfiga@chromium.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        sboyd@kernel.org, linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "list@263.net:IOMMU DRIVERS" <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, alex.williamson@redhat.com,
        robh+dt <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        freedreno <freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
References: <20181116112430.31248-1-vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org>
 <20181116112430.31248-6-vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org>
 <20181121173803.GB9801@arm.com>
 <CAFp+6iELH7Mw3Ue2ksEyV+Ac8hG8--Ki69xrPCA4F-AcireRow@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAFQd5B-bZR8dmjARb8L4oqgET2YAjXhexAO0GKAvU4JoVU=7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFp+6iFhBRJWGY4Hj30tWedGpEUcnkBJrOvffmbpD2m9QMZB3A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20181123183428.GD21183@arm.com>
From:   Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org>
Message-ID: <30fd45b5-50f0-7f2f-aab3-adc4528d21a8@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Mon, 26 Nov 2018 16:25:35 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20181123183428.GD21183@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 11/24/2018 12:04 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 03:06:29PM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 2:52 PM Tomasz Figa <tfiga@chromium.org> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 6:13 PM Vivek Gautam
>>> <vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:09 PM Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 04:54:30PM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>>>>>> @@ -2026,6 +2027,17 @@ ARM_SMMU_MATCH_DATA(arm_mmu401, ARM_SMMU_V1_64K, GENERIC_SMMU);
>>>>>>   ARM_SMMU_MATCH_DATA(arm_mmu500, ARM_SMMU_V2, ARM_MMU500);
>>>>>>   ARM_SMMU_MATCH_DATA(cavium_smmuv2, ARM_SMMU_V2, CAVIUM_SMMUV2);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +static const char * const qcom_smmuv2_clks[] = {
>>>>>> +     "bus", "iface",
>>>>>> +};
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +static const struct arm_smmu_match_data qcom_smmuv2 = {
>>>>>> +     .version = ARM_SMMU_V2,
>>>>>> +     .model = QCOM_SMMUV2,
>>>>>> +     .clks = qcom_smmuv2_clks,
>>>>>> +     .num_clks = ARRAY_SIZE(qcom_smmuv2_clks),
>>>>>> +};
>>>>> These seems redundant if we go down the route proposed by Thor, where we
>>>>> just pull all of the clocks out of the device-tree. In which case, why
>>>>> do we need this match_data at all?
>>>> Which is better? Driver relying solely on the device tree to tell
>>>> which all clocks
>>>> are required to be enabled,
>>>> or, the driver deciding itself based on the platform's match data,
>>>> that it should
>>>> have X, Y, & Z clocks that should be supplied from the device tree.
>>> The former would simplify the driver, but would also make it
>>> impossible to spot mistakes in DT, which would ultimately surface out
>>> as very hard to debug bugs (likely complete system lockups).
>> Thanks.
>> Yea, this is how I understand things presently. Relying on device tree
>> puts the things out of driver's control.
> But it also has the undesirable effect of having to update the driver
> code whenever we want to add support for a new SMMU implementation. If
> we do this all in the DT, as Thor is trying to do, then older kernels
> will work well with new hardware.
>
>> Hi Will,
>> Am I unable to understand the intentions here for Thor's clock-fetch
>> design change?
> I'm having trouble parsing your question, sorry. Please work with Thor
> so that we have a single way to get the clock information. My preference
> is to take it from the firmware, for the reason I stated above.
Hi Will,

Sure, thanks. I will work with Thor to get this going.

Hi Thor,
Does it sound okay to you to squash your patch [1] into my patch [2] with
your 'Signed-off-by' tag?
I will update the commit log to include the information about getting
clock details from device tree.

[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10628725/
[2] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10686061/

Best regards
Vivek
>
> Will