Re: [PATCH 5/4] iommu/arm-smmu: Poll for TLB sync completion more effectively

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 05:59:40PM +, Robin Murphy wrote: > On relatively slow development platforms and software models, the > inefficiency of our TLB sync loop tends not to show up - for instance on > a Juno r1 board I typically see the TLBI has completed of its own accord > by the time we

Re: [PATCH 5/4] iommu/arm-smmu: Poll for TLB sync completion more effectively

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Robin Murphy wrote: > On relatively slow development platforms and software models, the > inefficiency of our TLB sync loop tends not to show up - for instance on > a Juno r1 board I typically see the TLBI has completed of its own accord >

[PATCH 5/4] iommu/arm-smmu: Poll for TLB sync completion more effectively

On relatively slow development platforms and software models, the inefficiency of our TLB sync loop tends not to show up - for instance on a Juno r1 board I typically see the TLBI has completed of its own accord by the time we get to the sync, such that the latter finishes instantly. However, on