Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-4882-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Message-ID: <a363c860-62be-43a7-930c-cab8a6f3fa6c@quicinc.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 13:54:55 +0530
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] iommu/arm-smmu: add ACTLR data and support for
 SM8550
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio
	<konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
CC: <will@kernel.org>, <joro@8bytes.org>, <jsnitsel@redhat.com>,
        <quic_bjorande@quicinc.com>, <mani@kernel.org>,
        <quic_eberman@quicinc.com>, <robdclark@chromium.org>,
        <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>, <robh@kernel.org>,
        <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>, <quic_pkondeti@quicinc.com>,
        <quic_molvera@quicinc.com>, <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, <iommu@lists.linux.dev>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <qipl.kernel.upstream@quicinc.com>
References: <20231215101827.30549-1-quic_bibekkum@quicinc.com>
 <20231215101827.30549-4-quic_bibekkum@quicinc.com>
 <CAA8EJppcsr1sbeD1fK0nZ+rASABNcetBK3yMvaP7OiA4JPwskw@mail.gmail.com>
 <c9493c5f-ccf8-4e21-b00c-5fbc2a5f2edb@quicinc.com>
 <b7f2bbf9-fb5a-430d-aa32-3a220b46c2f0@arm.com>
 <1eee8bae-59f0-4066-9d04-8c3a5f750d3a@linaro.org>
 <42d627af-164b-4b50-973e-fa71d86cb84c@linaro.org>
 <aa8b2ccd-33da-404b-9a93-3d88cf63ec77@quicinc.com>
 <8338db1e-0216-4fc5-b6ab-ddf43adf3648@linaro.org>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Bibek Kumar Patro <quic_bibekkum@quicinc.com>
In-Reply-To: <8338db1e-0216-4fc5-b6ab-ddf43adf3648@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


On 12/18/2023 7:51 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On 18/12/2023 13:23, Bibek Kumar Patro wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12/16/2023 9:45 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>> On 16/12/2023 02:03, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>> On 15.12.2023 13:54, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-12-15 12:20 pm, Bibek Kumar Patro wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/15/2023 4:14 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 at 12:19, Bibek Kumar Patro
>>>>>>> <quic_bibekkum@quicinc.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Add ACTLR data table for SM8550 along with support for
>>>>>>>> same including SM8550 specific implementation operations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bibek Kumar Patro <quic_bibekkum@quicinc.com>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>    drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c | 89 
>>>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>    1 file changed, 89 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c 
>>>>>>>> b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c
>>>>>>>> index cb49291f5233..d2006f610243 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c
>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c
>>>>>>>> @@ -20,6 +20,85 @@ struct actlr_config {
>>>>>>>>           u32 actlr;
>>>>>>>>    };
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +/*
>>>>>>>> + * SMMU-500 TRM defines BIT(0) as CMTLB (Enable context caching 
>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>> + * macro TLB) and BIT(1) as CPRE (Enable context caching in the 
>>>>>>>> prefetch
>>>>>>>> + * buffer). The remaining bits are implementation defined and 
>>>>>>>> vary across
>>>>>>>> + * SoCs.
>>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +#define PREFETCH_DEFAULT       0
>>>>>>>> +#define PREFETCH_SHALLOW       BIT(8)
>>>>>>>> +#define PREFETCH_MODERATE      BIT(9)
>>>>>>>> +#define PREFETCH_DEEP          (BIT(9) | BIT(8))
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I thin the following might be more correct:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> #include <linux/bitfield.h>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> #define PREFETCH_MASK GENMASK(9, 8)
>>>>>>> #define PREFETCH_DEFAULT FIELD_PREP(PREFETCH_MASK, 0)
>>>>>>> #define PREFETCH_SHALLOW FIELD_PREP(PREFETCH_MASK, 1)
>>>>>>> #define PREFETCH_MODERATE FIELD_PREP(PREFETCH_MASK, 2)
>>>>>>> #define PREFETCH_DEEP FIELD_PREP(PREFETCH_MASK, 3)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ack, thanks for this suggestion. Let me try this out using
>>>>>> GENMASK. Once tested, will take care of this in next version.
>>>>>
>>>>> FWIW the more typical usage would be to just define the named 
>>>>> macros for the raw field values, then put the FIELD_PREP() at the 
>>>>> point of use. However in this case that's liable to get pretty 
>>>>> verbose, so although I'm usually a fan of bitfield.h, the most 
>>>>> readable option here might actually be to stick with simpler 
>>>>> definitions of "(0 << 8)", "(1 << 8)", etc. However it's not really 
>>>>> a big deal either way, and I defer to whatever Dmitry and Konrad 
>>>>> prefer, since they're the ones looking after arm-smmu-qcom the most :)
>>>> My 5 cents would be to just use the "common" style of doing this, so:
>>>>
>>>> #define ACTRL_PREFETCH    GENMASK(9, 8)
>>>>   #define PREFETCH_DEFAULT 0
>>>>   #define PREFETCH_SHALLOW 1
>>>>   #define PREFETCH_MODERATE 2
>>>>   #define PREFETCH_DEEP 3
>>>>
>>>> and then use
>>>>
>>>> | FIELD_PREP(ACTRL_PREFETCH, PREFETCH_x)
>>>>
>>>> it can get verbose, but.. arguably that's good, since you really want
>>>> to make sure the right bits are set here
>>>
>>> Sounds good to me.
>>>
>>
>> Konrad, Dimitry, just checked FIELD_PREP() implementation
>>
>> #define FIELD_FIT(_mask, _val)
>> ({                                                              \
>>                   __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, 0ULL, _val, "FIELD_PREP: ");  \
>>                   ((typeof(_mask))(_val) << __bf_shf(_mask)) & (_mask); \
>> })
>>
>> since it is defined as a block, it won't be possible to use FIELD_PREP
>> in macro or as a structure value, and can only be used inside a 
>> block/function. Orelse would show compilation errors as following
>>
>> kernel/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c:94:20: note: in 
>> expansion of macro 'PREFETCH_SHALLOW'
>>    { 0x1947, 0x0000, PREFETCH_SHALLOW | CPRE | CMTLB },
>>                      ^
>> kernel/include/linux/bitfield.h:113:2: error: braced-group within 
>> expression allowed only inside a function
>>    ({        \
>>    ^
>>
>> So as per my understanding I think, we might need to go ahead with the
>> generic implementation only. Let me know if I missed something.
> 
> Then anyway (foo << bar) is better compared to BIT(n) | BIT(m).
> 

Sure Dmitry, (foo << bar) would be simpler as well as Robin mentioned
earlier in his reply.
I can implement the defines as:

#define PREFETCH_DEFAULT       0
#define PREFETCH_SHALLOW       (1 << 8)
#define PREFETCH_MODERATE      (1 << 9)
#define PREFETCH_DEEP          (3 << 8)

This should be okay I think ?

Thanks,
Bibek