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;
Date:   Fri, 1 Nov 2019 16:31:36 +0000
From:   Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To:     Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org>,
        agross@kernel.org
Cc:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>,
        Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org>,
        bjorn.andersson@linaro.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv7 0/3] QCOM smmu-500 wait-for-safe handling for sdm845
Message-ID: <20191101163136.GC3603@willie-the-truck>
References: <cover.1568966170.git.saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <cover.1568966170.git.saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 01:34:26PM +0530, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
> Previous version of the patches are at [1]:
> 
> QCOM's implementation of smmu-500 on sdm845 adds a hardware logic called
> wait-for-safe. This logic helps in meeting the invalidation requirements
> from 'real-time clients', such as display and camera. This wait-for-safe
> logic ensures that the invalidations happen after getting an ack from these
> devices.
> In this patch-series we are disabling this wait-for-safe logic from the
> arm-smmu driver's probe as with this enabled the hardware tries to
> throttle invalidations from 'non-real-time clients', such as USB and UFS.
> 
> For detailed information please refer to patch [3/4] in this series.
> I have included the device tree patch too in this series for someone who
> would like to test out this. Here's a branch [2] that gets display on MTP
> SDM845 device.
> 
> This patch series is inspired from downstream work to handle under-performance
> issues on real-time clients on sdm845. In downstream we add separate page table
> ops to handle TLB maintenance and toggle wait-for-safe in tlb_sync call so that
> achieve required performance for display and camera [3, 4].

What's the plan for getting this merged? I'm not happy taking the firmware
bits without Andy's ack, but I also think the SMMU changes should go via
the IOMMU tree to avoid conflicts.

Andy?

Will