On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 05:52:59PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote: > IOMMU hardware with range-based TLB maintenance commands can work > happily with the iova and size arguments passed via the tlb_add_flush > callback, but for IOMMUs which require separate commands per entry in > the range, it is not straightforward to infer the necessary granularity > when it comes to issuing the actual commands. > > Add an additional argument indicating the granularity for the benefit > of drivers needing to know, and update the ARM LPAE code appropriately > (for non-leaf invalidations we currently just assume the worst-case > page granularity rather than walking the table to check). > > Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c | 2 +- > drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c | 2 +- > drivers/iommu/io-pgtable-arm.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ > drivers/iommu/io-pgtable.h | 4 ++-- > drivers/iommu/ipmmu-vmsa.c | 4 ++-- > 5 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c > index 4e5118a..c302b65 100644 > --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c > +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c > @@ -1335,7 +1335,7 @@ static void arm_smmu_tlb_inv_context(void *cookie) > } > > static void arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_nosync(unsigned long iova, size_t size, > - bool leaf, void *cookie) > + size_t granule, bool leaf, void > *cookie) > { > struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain = cookie; > struct arm_smmu_device *smmu = smmu_domain->smmu; > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c > index 47dc7a7..601e3dd 100644 > --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c > +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c > @@ -582,7 +582,7 @@ static void arm_smmu_tlb_inv_context(void *cookie) > } > > static void arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_nosync(unsigned long iova, size_t size, > - bool leaf, void *cookie) > + size_t granule, bool leaf, void > *cookie) > { > struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain = cookie; > struct arm_smmu_cfg *cfg = &smmu_domain->cfg; > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/io-pgtable-arm.c b/drivers/iommu/io-pgtable-arm.c > index 366a354..9088d27 100644 > --- a/drivers/iommu/io-pgtable-arm.c > +++ b/drivers/iommu/io-pgtable-arm.c > @@ -58,8 +58,10 @@ > ((((d)->levels - ((l) - ARM_LPAE_START_LVL(d) + 1)) \ > * (d)->bits_per_level) + (d)->pg_shift) > > +#define ARM_LPAE_GRANULE(d) (1UL << (d)->pg_shift) > + > #define ARM_LPAE_PAGES_PER_PGD(d) \ > - DIV_ROUND_UP((d)->pgd_size, 1UL << (d)->pg_shift) > + DIV_ROUND_UP((d)->pgd_size, ARM_LPAE_GRANULE(d)) > > /* > * Calculate the index at level l used to map virtual address a using the > @@ -169,7 +171,7 @@ > /* IOPTE accessors */ > #define iopte_deref(pte,d) \ > (__va((pte) & ((1ULL << ARM_LPAE_MAX_ADDR_BITS) - 1) \ > - & ~((1ULL << (d)->pg_shift) - 1))) > + & ~(ARM_LPAE_GRANULE(d) - 1)))
Do we run the risk of truncating the VA on 32-bit ARM here? Will _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
