Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210326231303.3071950-1-eric@anholt.net> <20210329144729.GB4203@willie-the-truck>
 <CAF6AEGugpEk396DVtWX=W+uf3p-wcgBfCSpSLWGQJE1vKpJ4aw@mail.gmail.com> <20210330093432.GB5281@willie-the-truck>
In-Reply-To: <20210330093432.GB5281@willie-the-truck>
From:   Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 30 Mar 2021 08:03:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CAF6AEGvCCWvmRBhzY4MsdzgwfJ+GF2AUOS-_NTyhM8wtnDzY2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] iommu/arm-smmu-qcom: Skip the TTBR1 quirk for db820c.
To:     Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc:     Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        freedreno <freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Sean Paul <sean@poorly.run>,
        Jordan Crouse <jcrouse@codeaurora.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 2:34 AM Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 09:02:50PM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 7:47 AM Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 04:13:02PM -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
> > > > db820c wants to use the qcom smmu path to get HUPCF set (which keeps
> > > > the GPU from wedging and then sometimes wedging the kernel after a
> > > > page fault), but it doesn't have separate pagetables support yet in
> > > > drm/msm so we can't go all the way to the TTBR1 path.
> > >
> > > What do you mean by "doesn't have separate pagetables support yet"? The
> > > compatible string doesn't feel like the right way to determine this.
> >
> > the compatible string identifies what it is, not what the sw
> > limitations are, so in that regard it seems right to me..
>
> Well it depends on what "doesn't have separate pagetables support yet"
> means. I can't tell if it's a hardware issue, a firmware issue or a driver
> issue.

Just a driver issue (and the fact that currently we don't have
physical access to a device... debugging a5xx per-process-pgtables by
pushing untested things to the CI farm is kind of a difficult way to
work)

BR,
-R