From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com (szxga02-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.188]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03625227E8F; Tue, 11 Mar 2025 11:32:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.188 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741692762; cv=none; b=icfZxq5yv/ROM9M4ShE9BGVjVH1CYDeuw1TfcnEyoZsaPxF3GngvfwkkLtuOdGvJJj8Z5lBRzafD00KfRw27uXbnIRJIcNSDKs+ChofZWIANSSBGdEeRb/D1VeiWv9aIO4HUctELQeSxMrfPyaBZQ8YJ0VUx5UytyHFT6UXuJ0A= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741692762; c=relaxed/simple; bh=buuc6ecEs8yssWAHtrxKJlX8ai8izcXi/ld/leYgkTU=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=ZhNu3tCiAAuedutyL7cMwU4/i4QAsWCdih2jNh6RRJ4+ThtM5CQ+V3JqfTr+gESYIu8h3T5hVVBqqF4bJv8Upce0R0sh0SMKrUaCXMDD60HyLA1wnQLJlqUcAOQ1Ed2C5oCCzJ4ASraodzInoK2DBNaIccgPTjiBJW/cSjvDLmY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.188 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.88.194]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4ZBs3M4Hl3zCs7B; Tue, 11 Mar 2025 19:29:03 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggemv704-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [10.3.19.47]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01FC81403D1; Tue, 11 Mar 2025 19:32:36 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemn100009.china.huawei.com (7.202.194.112) by dggemv704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.47) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.39; Tue, 11 Mar 2025 19:32:35 +0800 Received: from [10.67.121.59] (10.67.121.59) by kwepemn100009.china.huawei.com (7.202.194.112) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Tue, 11 Mar 2025 19:32:35 +0800 Message-ID: <0552e10d-acde-33cd-7f9c-5d7b28fee735@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2025 19:32:34 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.2.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/13] mailbox: pcc: Always map the shared memory communication address To: Sudeep Holla , , CC: Jassi Brar , Adam Young , Robbie King References: <20250305-pcc_fixes_updates-v2-0-1b1822bc8746@arm.com> <20250305-pcc_fixes_updates-v2-7-1b1822bc8746@arm.com> From: "lihuisong (C)" In-Reply-To: <20250305-pcc_fixes_updates-v2-7-1b1822bc8746@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.178) To kwepemn100009.china.huawei.com (7.202.194.112) 在 2025/3/6 0:38, Sudeep Holla 写道: > Currently the shared memory communication address was mapped by the > mailbox client drivers leading to all sorts of inconsistencies. > > It also has resulted in the inconsistent attributes used while mapping > the shared memory regions. > > In order to remove/eliminate any issues, let us ensures the shared > memory address is always mapped and unmapped when the PCC channels are > requested and release. > > We need to map them as the ACPI PCCT associates these shared memory > with each channel subspace and may need use the status or the flags in > the headers of those shared memory communication address regions to > manage the transport/channel. > > Since there are no users of pcc_chan_ioremap() and also it is mapped > by default, we can stop exporting it and merge the functionality into > pcc_mbox_request_channel(). There are two ioremap for the existing mbox client driver after this patch. The existing mbox client driver would not use this variable, and no one else uses it. So it is safe, right? Do we need to make a statement that the two iommaps have no impact on the existing mbox client drivers? > > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla > --- Acked-by: Huisong Li Tested-by: Huisong Li >