Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-117238-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 10:48:48 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To: "Peng Fan (OSS)" <peng.fan@oss.nxp.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
	Bixuan Cui <cuibixuan@huawei.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, iommu@lists.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: support suspend/resume
Message-ID: <20240325134848.GA8419@ziepe.ca>
References: <20240324-smmu-v3-v1-0-11bc96e156a5@nxp.com>
 <20240324-smmu-v3-v1-3-11bc96e156a5@nxp.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240324-smmu-v3-v1-3-11bc96e156a5@nxp.com>

On Sun, Mar 24, 2024 at 08:29:00PM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:

> +static void arm_smmu_resume_unique_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> +{
> +	struct device *dev = smmu->dev;
> +	struct msi_desc *desc;
> +	struct msi_msg msg;
> +
> +	if (!dev->msi.domain)
> +		return;
> +
> +	desc = irq_get_msi_desc(smmu->evtq.q.irq);
> +	if (desc) {
> +		get_cached_msi_msg(smmu->evtq.q.irq, &msg);
> +		arm_smmu_write_msi_msg(desc, &msg);
> +	}
> +
> +	desc = irq_get_msi_desc(smmu->gerr_irq);
> +	if (desc) {
> +		get_cached_msi_msg(smmu->gerr_irq, &msg);
> +		arm_smmu_write_msi_msg(desc, &msg);
> +	}
> +
> +	if (smmu->features & ARM_SMMU_FEAT_PRI) {
> +		desc = irq_get_msi_desc(smmu->priq.q.irq);
> +		if (desc) {
> +			get_cached_msi_msg(smmu->priq.q.irq, &msg);
> +			arm_smmu_write_msi_msg(desc, &msg);
> +		}
> +	}
> +}

I wonder if this should be done instead by converting the driver away
from platform MSI to the new MSI mechanism?

Jason