On 31/10/16 18:06, David Woodhouse wrote:
>
>>> So dma_ops can go back to being a platform-wide thing; it's only the
>>> IOMMU ops which are different per device.
>>
>> Well, in our case we'll probably never escape the kind of nutty SoC
>> topologies where only some devices are behind IOMMUs (which might
>> themselves be heterogeneous), only some are coherent, etc., but if you
>> don't have to deal with that then dma_ops indeed become nice and easy.
>
>
> But that is all handled through the per-device IOMMU ops, surely? You can
> still have a generic dma_ops implementation that just uses the IOMMU ops
> and falls back to 1:1 or swiotlb if there is no IOMMU for that device.
Oh, sure - indeed on arm64 we did combine the coherent and non-coherent
ops that way - I just think for the ARM{,64} cases it would wind up more
hideous and unmaintainable to cram everything together. It's swings and
roundabouts really though.
>>>>> And IOMMU ops should be per-device of course, not per-bus. But this is
>>>>> a start...
>>>> As it happens, that was one of the additional motivations for
>>>> introducing the new iommu_fwspec - see [3] for my take on the matter.
>>>
>>> Right... in my case I don't actually need iommu_ops to change. We have
>>> multiple IOMMUs of the same type, and we don't have a *separate* ops
>>> structure for each of them.
>>>
>>> What we *do* need to change is the iommu-private data pointer, which
>>> indicates specifically which DMAR unit is being used.
>>>
>>> That's currently kept in dev->archdata but with assumptions that the
>>> device->IOMMU mapping is only done when the domain is first set up, so
>>> it needs to be redone either with a new field in dev->archdata or some
>>> additional complexity.
>>>
>>> Rather than a new field in archdata.... should we make this a generic
>>> iommu_priv pointer living next to iommu_ops in the device structure?
>>>
>>> Could you use that?
>>
>> As far as I can tell from looking through the x86 drivers, you should
>> already be good to go to convert the likes of device_to_iommu() and the
>> equivalent AMD lookup tables over to a one-off initialisation of
>> dev->iommu_fwspec and stashing stuff in iommu_fwspec::iommu_priv and
>> iommu_fwspec::ids as appropriate. I just didn't dare try writing the
>> patches myself...
>
> Yeah, I was looking at that. Can probably work if we fix it so we can pass
> a NULL fwnode to iommu_fwspec_init(), and/or not assume that fwnode is OF.
Hmm, there shouldn't be an OF assumption - note that the of_node_get()
is simply a no-op if is_of_node(iommu_fwnode) is false - the whole
machinery is certainly intended to work transparently for both ACPI and DT.
If it's not feasible to create static fwnodes directly from DRHD the
same way Lorenzo does for SMMUs in IORT, then I don't think anything
will actually go wrong if you just pass NULL. It'll simply look a bit
weird, and mean you might have a bit more work to look up the relevant
DMAR unit the next time you see the device again.
Robin.
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
