On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 12:42 PM Connor Abbott wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 2:08 PM Will Deacon wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 11:56:48AM -0500, Connor Abbott wrote:
> > > In some cases drm/msm has to resume a stalled transaction directly in
> > > its fault handler. Experimentally t
On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 2:08 PM Will Deacon wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 11:56:48AM -0500, Connor Abbott wrote:
> > In some cases drm/msm has to resume a stalled transaction directly in
> > its fault handler. Experimentally this doesn't work on SMMU500 if the
> > fault hasn't already been ac
On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 11:56:48AM -0500, Connor Abbott wrote:
> In some cases drm/msm has to resume a stalled transaction directly in
> its fault handler. Experimentally this doesn't work on SMMU500 if the
> fault hasn't already been acknowledged by clearing FSR. Rather than
> trying to clear FSR
On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 8:57 AM Connor Abbott wrote:
>
> In some cases drm/msm has to resume a stalled transaction directly in
> its fault handler. Experimentally this doesn't work on SMMU500 if the
> fault hasn't already been acknowledged by clearing FSR. Rather than
> trying to clear FSR in msm's
In some cases drm/msm has to resume a stalled transaction directly in
its fault handler. Experimentally this doesn't work on SMMU500 if the
fault hasn't already been acknowledged by clearing FSR. Rather than
trying to clear FSR in msm's fault handler and implementing a
tricky handshake to avoid acc
