drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c | 57 ++++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
The only callers to mmu_hw_do_operation_locked() pass an 'op' of either
AS_COMAND_FLUSH_MEM or AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_PT. This means the code paths
after that are dead. Removing those paths means the
mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl() function might has well be inlined.
Simplify everything by having a switch statement for the type of 'op'
(warning if we get an unexpected value) and removing the dead cases.
Suggested-by: Daniel Stone <daniel@fooishbar.org>
Signed-off-by: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>
---
Changes from v1:
* As well as removing dead code, inline mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl
drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c | 57 ++++++++++++---------------
1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c
index 367c89aca558..9d77e7c16ed2 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c
@@ -569,15 +569,37 @@ static void lock_region(struct panthor_device *ptdev, u32 as_nr,
write_cmd(ptdev, as_nr, AS_COMMAND_LOCK);
}
-static int mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl(struct panthor_device *ptdev, int as_nr,
- u32 op)
+static int mmu_hw_do_operation_locked(struct panthor_device *ptdev, int as_nr,
+ u64 iova, u64 size, u32 op)
{
const u32 l2_flush_op = CACHE_CLEAN | CACHE_INV;
- u32 lsc_flush_op = 0;
+ u32 lsc_flush_op;
int ret;
- if (op == AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_MEM)
+ lockdep_assert_held(&ptdev->mmu->as.slots_lock);
+
+ switch (op) {
+ case AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_MEM:
lsc_flush_op = CACHE_CLEAN | CACHE_INV;
+ break;
+ case AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_PT:
+ lsc_flush_op = 0;
+ break;
+ default:
+ drm_WARN(&ptdev->base, 1, "Unexpected AS_COMMAND: %d", op);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
+ if (as_nr < 0)
+ return 0;
+
+ /*
+ * If the AS number is greater than zero, then we can be sure
+ * the device is up and running, so we don't need to explicitly
+ * power it up
+ */
+
+ lock_region(ptdev, as_nr, iova, size);
ret = wait_ready(ptdev, as_nr);
if (ret)
@@ -598,33 +620,6 @@ static int mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl(struct panthor_device *ptdev, int as_nr,
return wait_ready(ptdev, as_nr);
}
-static int mmu_hw_do_operation_locked(struct panthor_device *ptdev, int as_nr,
- u64 iova, u64 size, u32 op)
-{
- lockdep_assert_held(&ptdev->mmu->as.slots_lock);
-
- if (as_nr < 0)
- return 0;
-
- /*
- * If the AS number is greater than zero, then we can be sure
- * the device is up and running, so we don't need to explicitly
- * power it up
- */
-
- if (op != AS_COMMAND_UNLOCK)
- lock_region(ptdev, as_nr, iova, size);
-
- if (op == AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_MEM || op == AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_PT)
- return mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl(ptdev, as_nr, op);
-
- /* Run the MMU operation */
- write_cmd(ptdev, as_nr, op);
-
- /* Wait for the flush to complete */
- return wait_ready(ptdev, as_nr);
-}
-
static int mmu_hw_do_operation(struct panthor_vm *vm,
u64 iova, u64 size, u32 op)
{
--
2.39.5
On 15/08/2025 14:42, Steven Price wrote: > The only callers to mmu_hw_do_operation_locked() pass an 'op' of either > AS_COMAND_FLUSH_MEM or AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_PT. This means the code paths > after that are dead. Removing those paths means the > mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl() function might has well be inlined. > > Simplify everything by having a switch statement for the type of 'op' > (warning if we get an unexpected value) and removing the dead cases. > > Suggested-by: Daniel Stone <daniel@fooishbar.org> > Signed-off-by: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com> Applied to drm-misc-next. Thanks, Steve > --- > Changes from v1: > * As well as removing dead code, inline mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl > > drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c | 57 ++++++++++++--------------- > 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c > index 367c89aca558..9d77e7c16ed2 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c > @@ -569,15 +569,37 @@ static void lock_region(struct panthor_device *ptdev, u32 as_nr, > write_cmd(ptdev, as_nr, AS_COMMAND_LOCK); > } > > -static int mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl(struct panthor_device *ptdev, int as_nr, > - u32 op) > +static int mmu_hw_do_operation_locked(struct panthor_device *ptdev, int as_nr, > + u64 iova, u64 size, u32 op) > { > const u32 l2_flush_op = CACHE_CLEAN | CACHE_INV; > - u32 lsc_flush_op = 0; > + u32 lsc_flush_op; > int ret; > > - if (op == AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_MEM) > + lockdep_assert_held(&ptdev->mmu->as.slots_lock); > + > + switch (op) { > + case AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_MEM: > lsc_flush_op = CACHE_CLEAN | CACHE_INV; > + break; > + case AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_PT: > + lsc_flush_op = 0; > + break; > + default: > + drm_WARN(&ptdev->base, 1, "Unexpected AS_COMMAND: %d", op); > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + > + if (as_nr < 0) > + return 0; > + > + /* > + * If the AS number is greater than zero, then we can be sure > + * the device is up and running, so we don't need to explicitly > + * power it up > + */ > + > + lock_region(ptdev, as_nr, iova, size); > > ret = wait_ready(ptdev, as_nr); > if (ret) > @@ -598,33 +620,6 @@ static int mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl(struct panthor_device *ptdev, int as_nr, > return wait_ready(ptdev, as_nr); > } > > -static int mmu_hw_do_operation_locked(struct panthor_device *ptdev, int as_nr, > - u64 iova, u64 size, u32 op) > -{ > - lockdep_assert_held(&ptdev->mmu->as.slots_lock); > - > - if (as_nr < 0) > - return 0; > - > - /* > - * If the AS number is greater than zero, then we can be sure > - * the device is up and running, so we don't need to explicitly > - * power it up > - */ > - > - if (op != AS_COMMAND_UNLOCK) > - lock_region(ptdev, as_nr, iova, size); > - > - if (op == AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_MEM || op == AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_PT) > - return mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl(ptdev, as_nr, op); > - > - /* Run the MMU operation */ > - write_cmd(ptdev, as_nr, op); > - > - /* Wait for the flush to complete */ > - return wait_ready(ptdev, as_nr); > -} > - > static int mmu_hw_do_operation(struct panthor_vm *vm, > u64 iova, u64 size, u32 op) > {
On 15/08/2025 14:42, Steven Price wrote: > The only callers to mmu_hw_do_operation_locked() pass an 'op' of either > AS_COMAND_FLUSH_MEM or AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_PT. This means the code paths > after that are dead. Removing those paths means the > mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl() function might has well be inlined. > > Simplify everything by having a switch statement for the type of 'op' > (warning if we get an unexpected value) and removing the dead cases. > > Suggested-by: Daniel Stone <daniel@fooishbar.org> > Signed-off-by: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com> > --- > Changes from v1: > * As well as removing dead code, inline mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl > > drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c | 57 ++++++++++++--------------- > 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c > index 367c89aca558..9d77e7c16ed2 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c > @@ -569,15 +569,37 @@ static void lock_region(struct panthor_device *ptdev, u32 as_nr, > write_cmd(ptdev, as_nr, AS_COMMAND_LOCK); > } > > -static int mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl(struct panthor_device *ptdev, int as_nr, > - u32 op) > +static int mmu_hw_do_operation_locked(struct panthor_device *ptdev, int as_nr, > + u64 iova, u64 size, u32 op) > { > const u32 l2_flush_op = CACHE_CLEAN | CACHE_INV; > - u32 lsc_flush_op = 0; > + u32 lsc_flush_op; > int ret; > > - if (op == AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_MEM) > + lockdep_assert_held(&ptdev->mmu->as.slots_lock); > + > + switch (op) { > + case AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_MEM: > lsc_flush_op = CACHE_CLEAN | CACHE_INV; > + break; > + case AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_PT: > + lsc_flush_op = 0; > + break; > + default: > + drm_WARN(&ptdev->base, 1, "Unexpected AS_COMMAND: %d", op); > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + > + if (as_nr < 0) > + return 0; > + Hi Steve, Thanks for pushing this patch. I was planning to address Daniel's comment next week. One small nit, would it be better to move the (as_nr < 0) check just after the lockdep_assert_held() (above the switch case)? Looks good to me otherwise. Kind regards, Karunika > + /* > + * If the AS number is greater than zero, then we can be sure > + * the device is up and running, so we don't need to explicitly > + * power it up > + */ > + > + lock_region(ptdev, as_nr, iova, size); > > ret = wait_ready(ptdev, as_nr); > if (ret) > @@ -598,33 +620,6 @@ static int mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl(struct panthor_device *ptdev, int as_nr, > return wait_ready(ptdev, as_nr); > } > > -static int mmu_hw_do_operation_locked(struct panthor_device *ptdev, int as_nr, > - u64 iova, u64 size, u32 op) > -{ > - lockdep_assert_held(&ptdev->mmu->as.slots_lock); > - > - if (as_nr < 0) > - return 0; > - > - /* > - * If the AS number is greater than zero, then we can be sure > - * the device is up and running, so we don't need to explicitly > - * power it up > - */ > - > - if (op != AS_COMMAND_UNLOCK) > - lock_region(ptdev, as_nr, iova, size); > - > - if (op == AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_MEM || op == AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_PT) > - return mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl(ptdev, as_nr, op); > - > - /* Run the MMU operation */ > - write_cmd(ptdev, as_nr, op); > - > - /* Wait for the flush to complete */ > - return wait_ready(ptdev, as_nr); > -} > - > static int mmu_hw_do_operation(struct panthor_vm *vm, > u64 iova, u64 size, u32 op) > {
On 15/08/2025 15:01, Karunika Choo wrote: > On 15/08/2025 14:42, Steven Price wrote: >> The only callers to mmu_hw_do_operation_locked() pass an 'op' of either >> AS_COMAND_FLUSH_MEM or AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_PT. This means the code paths >> after that are dead. Removing those paths means the >> mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl() function might has well be inlined. >> >> Simplify everything by having a switch statement for the type of 'op' >> (warning if we get an unexpected value) and removing the dead cases. >> >> Suggested-by: Daniel Stone <daniel@fooishbar.org> >> Signed-off-by: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com> >> --- >> Changes from v1: >> * As well as removing dead code, inline mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl >> >> drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c | 57 ++++++++++++--------------- >> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c >> index 367c89aca558..9d77e7c16ed2 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c >> @@ -569,15 +569,37 @@ static void lock_region(struct panthor_device *ptdev, u32 as_nr, >> write_cmd(ptdev, as_nr, AS_COMMAND_LOCK); >> } >> >> -static int mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl(struct panthor_device *ptdev, int as_nr, >> - u32 op) >> +static int mmu_hw_do_operation_locked(struct panthor_device *ptdev, int as_nr, >> + u64 iova, u64 size, u32 op) >> { >> const u32 l2_flush_op = CACHE_CLEAN | CACHE_INV; >> - u32 lsc_flush_op = 0; >> + u32 lsc_flush_op; >> int ret; >> >> - if (op == AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_MEM) >> + lockdep_assert_held(&ptdev->mmu->as.slots_lock); >> + >> + switch (op) { >> + case AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_MEM: >> lsc_flush_op = CACHE_CLEAN | CACHE_INV; >> + break; >> + case AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_PT: >> + lsc_flush_op = 0; >> + break; >> + default: >> + drm_WARN(&ptdev->base, 1, "Unexpected AS_COMMAND: %d", op); >> + return -EINVAL; >> + } >> + >> + if (as_nr < 0) >> + return 0; >> + > > Hi Steve, > > Thanks for pushing this patch. I was planning to address Daniel's > comment next week. > > One small nit, would it be better to move the (as_nr < 0) check just > after the lockdep_assert_held() (above the switch case)? I'm not sure it makes much difference, but there was a minor reason for my ordering: By having it after the switch statement then if someone adds a call with an invalid op value it will always fail (with a warning). Whereas if we move the (as_nr < 0) check earlier then there's a chance they won't notice if their testing doesn't trigger that case. Obviously there might be a (theoretical) performance impact, but I don't think the one extra check would be noticeable - this isn't exactly a major fast path. Is there something else I've missed which would justify switching it around? Thanks, Steve > Looks good to me otherwise. > > Kind regards, > Karunika > >> + /* >> + * If the AS number is greater than zero, then we can be sure >> + * the device is up and running, so we don't need to explicitly >> + * power it up >> + */ >> + >> + lock_region(ptdev, as_nr, iova, size); >> >> ret = wait_ready(ptdev, as_nr); >> if (ret) >> @@ -598,33 +620,6 @@ static int mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl(struct panthor_device *ptdev, int as_nr, >> return wait_ready(ptdev, as_nr); >> } >> >> -static int mmu_hw_do_operation_locked(struct panthor_device *ptdev, int as_nr, >> - u64 iova, u64 size, u32 op) >> -{ >> - lockdep_assert_held(&ptdev->mmu->as.slots_lock); >> - >> - if (as_nr < 0) >> - return 0; >> - >> - /* >> - * If the AS number is greater than zero, then we can be sure >> - * the device is up and running, so we don't need to explicitly >> - * power it up >> - */ >> - >> - if (op != AS_COMMAND_UNLOCK) >> - lock_region(ptdev, as_nr, iova, size); >> - >> - if (op == AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_MEM || op == AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_PT) >> - return mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl(ptdev, as_nr, op); >> - >> - /* Run the MMU operation */ >> - write_cmd(ptdev, as_nr, op); >> - >> - /* Wait for the flush to complete */ >> - return wait_ready(ptdev, as_nr); >> -} >> - >> static int mmu_hw_do_operation(struct panthor_vm *vm, >> u64 iova, u64 size, u32 op) >> { >
On 15/08/2025 15:10, Steven Price wrote: > On 15/08/2025 15:01, Karunika Choo wrote: >> On 15/08/2025 14:42, Steven Price wrote: >>> The only callers to mmu_hw_do_operation_locked() pass an 'op' of either >>> AS_COMAND_FLUSH_MEM or AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_PT. This means the code paths >>> after that are dead. Removing those paths means the >>> mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl() function might has well be inlined. >>> >>> Simplify everything by having a switch statement for the type of 'op' >>> (warning if we get an unexpected value) and removing the dead cases. >>> >>> Suggested-by: Daniel Stone <daniel@fooishbar.org> >>> Signed-off-by: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com> >>> --- >>> Changes from v1: >>> * As well as removing dead code, inline mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl >>> >>> drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c | 57 ++++++++++++--------------- >>> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c >>> index 367c89aca558..9d77e7c16ed2 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_mmu.c >>> @@ -569,15 +569,37 @@ static void lock_region(struct panthor_device *ptdev, u32 as_nr, >>> write_cmd(ptdev, as_nr, AS_COMMAND_LOCK); >>> } >>> >>> -static int mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl(struct panthor_device *ptdev, int as_nr, >>> - u32 op) >>> +static int mmu_hw_do_operation_locked(struct panthor_device *ptdev, int as_nr, >>> + u64 iova, u64 size, u32 op) >>> { >>> const u32 l2_flush_op = CACHE_CLEAN | CACHE_INV; >>> - u32 lsc_flush_op = 0; >>> + u32 lsc_flush_op; >>> int ret; >>> >>> - if (op == AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_MEM) >>> + lockdep_assert_held(&ptdev->mmu->as.slots_lock); >>> + >>> + switch (op) { >>> + case AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_MEM: >>> lsc_flush_op = CACHE_CLEAN | CACHE_INV; >>> + break; >>> + case AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_PT: >>> + lsc_flush_op = 0; >>> + break; >>> + default: >>> + drm_WARN(&ptdev->base, 1, "Unexpected AS_COMMAND: %d", op); >>> + return -EINVAL; >>> + } >>> + >>> + if (as_nr < 0) >>> + return 0; >>> + >> >> Hi Steve, >> >> Thanks for pushing this patch. I was planning to address Daniel's >> comment next week. >> >> One small nit, would it be better to move the (as_nr < 0) check just >> after the lockdep_assert_held() (above the switch case)? > > I'm not sure it makes much difference, but there was a minor reason for > my ordering: > > By having it after the switch statement then if someone adds a call with > an invalid op value it will always fail (with a warning). Whereas if we > move the (as_nr < 0) check earlier then there's a chance they won't > notice if their testing doesn't trigger that case. > > Obviously there might be a (theoretical) performance impact, but I don't > think the one extra check would be noticeable - this isn't exactly a > major fast path. Is there something else I've missed which would justify > switching it around? > Hi Steve, Thanks for the explanation. I agree it would be better to have the switch case first to check for an invalid op. LGTM. Reviewed-by: Karunika Choo <karunika.choo@arm.com> Kind regards, Karunika > Thanks, > Steve > >> Looks good to me otherwise. >> >> Kind regards, >> Karunika >> >>> + /* >>> + * If the AS number is greater than zero, then we can be sure >>> + * the device is up and running, so we don't need to explicitly >>> + * power it up >>> + */ >>> + >>> + lock_region(ptdev, as_nr, iova, size); >>> >>> ret = wait_ready(ptdev, as_nr); >>> if (ret) >>> @@ -598,33 +620,6 @@ static int mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl(struct panthor_device *ptdev, int as_nr, >>> return wait_ready(ptdev, as_nr); >>> } >>> >>> -static int mmu_hw_do_operation_locked(struct panthor_device *ptdev, int as_nr, >>> - u64 iova, u64 size, u32 op) >>> -{ >>> - lockdep_assert_held(&ptdev->mmu->as.slots_lock); >>> - >>> - if (as_nr < 0) >>> - return 0; >>> - >>> - /* >>> - * If the AS number is greater than zero, then we can be sure >>> - * the device is up and running, so we don't need to explicitly >>> - * power it up >>> - */ >>> - >>> - if (op != AS_COMMAND_UNLOCK) >>> - lock_region(ptdev, as_nr, iova, size); >>> - >>> - if (op == AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_MEM || op == AS_COMMAND_FLUSH_PT) >>> - return mmu_hw_do_flush_on_gpu_ctrl(ptdev, as_nr, op); >>> - >>> - /* Run the MMU operation */ >>> - write_cmd(ptdev, as_nr, op); >>> - >>> - /* Wait for the flush to complete */ >>> - return wait_ready(ptdev, as_nr); >>> -} >>> - >>> static int mmu_hw_do_operation(struct panthor_vm *vm, >>> u64 iova, u64 size, u32 op) >>> { >> >
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.