[PATCHv8 0/8] System Cache support for GPU and required SMMU support

[Sai Prakash Ranjan]

On 2020-11-24 00:52, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 9:01 AM Sai Prakash Ranjan
> <saiprakash.ranjan at codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> 
>> On 2020-11-23 20:51, Will Deacon wrote:
>> > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 08:00:39PM +0530, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
>> >> Some hardware variants contain a system cache or the last level
>> >> cache(llc). This cache is typically a large block which is shared
>> >> by multiple clients on the SOC. GPU uses the system cache to cache
>> >> both the GPU data buffers(like textures) as well the SMMU pagetables.
>> >> This helps with improved render performance as well as lower power
>> >> consumption by reducing the bus traffic to the system memory.
>> >>
>> >> The system cache architecture allows the cache to be split into slices
>> >> which then be used by multiple SOC clients. This patch series is an
>> >> effort to enable and use two of those slices preallocated for the GPU,
>> >> one for the GPU data buffers and another for the GPU SMMU hardware
>> >> pagetables.
>> >>
>> >> Patch 1 - Patch 6 adds system cache support in SMMU and GPU driver.
>> >> Patch 7 and 8 are minor cleanups for arm-smmu impl.
>> >>
>> >> Changes in v8:
>> >>  * Introduce a generic domain attribute for pagetable config (Will)
>> >>  * Rename quirk to more generic IO_PGTABLE_QUIRK_ARM_OUTER_WBWA (Will)
>> >>  * Move non-strict mode to use new struct domain_attr_io_pgtbl_config
>> >> (Will)
>> >
>> > Modulo some minor comments I've made, this looks good to me. What is
>> > the
>> > plan for merging it? I can take the IOMMU parts, but patches 4-6 touch
>> > the
>> > MSM GPU driver and I'd like to avoid conflicts with that.
>> >
>> 
>> SMMU bits are pretty much independent and GPU relies on the domain
>> attribute
>> and the quirk exposed, so as long as SMMU changes go in first it 
>> should
>> be good.
>> Rob?
> 
> I suppose one option would be to split out the patch that adds the
> attribute into it's own patch, and merge that both thru drm and iommu?
> 

Ok I can split out domain attr and quirk into its own patch if Will is
fine with that approach.

> If Will/Robin dislike that approach, I'll pick up the parts of the drm
> patches which don't depend on the new attribute for v5.11 and the rest
> for v5.12.. or possibly a second late v5.11 pull req if airlied
> doesn't hate me too much for it.
> 
> Going forward, I think we will have one or two more co-dependent
> series, like the smmu iova fault handler improvements that Jordan
> posted.  So I would like to hear how Will and Robin prefer to handle
> those.
> 
> BR,
> -R
> 

Thanks,
Sai

-- 
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a 
member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation