>On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 04:42:27PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> On 30/11/16 16:17, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
>> > Sricharan, Robin,
>> > I gave this series a go on ACPI and apart from an SMMU v3 fix-up
>> > it seems to work, more thorough testing required though.
>> > A key question below.
>> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 05:52:16AM +0530, Sricharan R wrote:
>> >> From: Robin Murphy <robin.mur...@arm.com>
>> >> IOMMU configuration represents unchanging properties of the hardware,
>> >> and as such should only need happen once in a device's lifetime, but
>> >> the necessary interaction with the IOMMU device and driver complicates
>> >> exactly when that point should be.
>> >> Since the only reasonable tool available for handling the inter-device
>> >> dependency is probe deferral, we need to prepare of_iommu_configure()
>> >> to run later than it is currently called (i.e. at driver probe rather
>> >> than device creation), to handle being retried, and to tell whether a
>> >> not-yet present IOMMU should be waited for or skipped (by virtue of
>> >> having declared a built-in driver or not).
>> >> Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.mur...@arm.com>
>> >> ---
>> >> drivers/iommu/of_iommu.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> >> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/of_iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/of_iommu.c
>> >> index ee49081..349bd1d 100644
>> >> --- a/drivers/iommu/of_iommu.c
>> >> +++ b/drivers/iommu/of_iommu.c
>> >> @@ -104,12 +104,20 @@ int of_get_dma_window(struct device_node *dn, const
>> >> char *prefix, int index,
>> >> int err;
>> >> ops = iommu_get_instance(fwnode);
>> >> - if (!ops || !ops->of_xlate)
>> >> + if ((ops && !ops->of_xlate) ||
>> >> + (!ops && !of_match_node(&__iommu_of_table, iommu_spec->np)))
>> > IIUC of_match_node() here is there to check there is a driver compiled
>> > in for this device_node (aka compatible string in OF world), correct ?
>> Yes - specifically, it's checking the magic table for a matching
>> IOMMU_OF_DECLARE entry.
>> > If that's the case (and I think that's what Sricharan was referring to
>> > in his ACPI query) I need to cook-up something on the ACPI side to
>> > emulate the OF linker table behaviour (or anyway to detect a driver is
>> > actually in the kernel), it is not that difficult but it is key to know,
>> > I will give it some thought to make it as clean as possible.
>> I didn't think this would be a concern for ACPI, since IORT works much
>> the same way the current of_iommu_init_fn/of_platform_device_create()
>> bodges in drivers so for DT. If you can only discover SMMUs from IORT,
>> then iort_init_platform_devices() will have already created every SMMU
>> that's going to exist before discovering other devices from wherever
>> they come from, thus you could never get into the situation of probing a
>> device without its SMMU being ready (if it's ever going to be). Is that
>> not right?
>It is right, my point and question is: we are probing a device and we
>have to know whether it is worth deferring its IOMMU DMA setup. On DT,
>through of_match_node(&__iommu_of_table, iommu_device_node) we check at
>1 - A device for the IOMMU exists
>2 - A driver for the IOMMU is compiled in the kernel
>Is this correct ? As you said (1) is not a concern on ACPI IORT (because
>we create the IOMMU device before _any_ other device so either the IOMMU
>device is there or it will never be by the time master devices are
>probed), but for (2) I need to slightly change how the IORT linker entry
>work to make sure we can detect a driver is actually compiled in the
>kernel, it is easy, I was just asking if my understanding was correct
>and I think that was what Sricharan was referring to in his query.
Yes right, this was what i was looking for in the ACPI case and putting this
in the iort_iommu_xlate was needed to return EPROBE_DEFER when the
driver is not yet been probed.
iommu mailing list