On 05/06/17 18:20, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 01:28:01PM +0100, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
>> On 31/05/17 18:23, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 07:01:38PM +0100, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
>>>> Address Translation Service (ATS) is an extension to PCIe allowing
>>>> endpoints to manage their own IOTLB, called Address Translation Cache
>>>> (ATC). Instead of having every memory transaction processed by the IOMMU,
>>>> the endpoint can first send an Address Translation Requests for an IOVA,
>>>> obtain the corresponding Physical Address from the IOMMU and store it in
>>>> its ATC. Subsequent transactions to this memory region can be performed on
>>>> the PA, in which case they are marked 'translated' and (partially) bypass
>>>> the IOMMU.
>>>> Since the extension uses fields that were previously reserved in the
>>>> PCIe Translation Layer Packet, it seems ill-advised to enabled it on a
>>>> system that doesn't fully support ATS.
>>>> To "old" root complexes that simply ignored the new AT field, an Address
>>>> Translation Request will look exactly like a Memory Read Request, so the
>>>> root bridge will forward a memory read to the IOMMU instead of a
>>>> translation request. If the access succeeds, the RC will send a Read
>>>> Completion, which looks like a Translation Completion, back to the
>>>> endpoint. As a result the endpoint might end up storing the content of
>>>> memory instead of a physical address in its ATC. In reality, it's more
>>>> likely that the size fields will be invalid and either end will detect the
>>>> error, but in any case, it is undesirable.
>>>> Add a way for firmware to tell the OS that ATS is supported by the PCI
>>>> root complex.
>>> Can't firmware have already enabled ATS? Often for things like this, not 
>>> present means "use firmware setting".
>> I don't think it's up to firmware to enable ATS in endpoints, because it
>> depends on IOMMU properties (e.g. configured page size). It must also be
>> enabled after the PASID capability, which the OS may or may not want to
>> enable.
>> While endpoints have ATS capability and config register, there is no
>> architected mechanism in root complexes as far as I know. So firmware may
>> have a mechanism outside the OS scope to toggle ATS in the root complex.
>> If there is a bug and firmware cannot enable ATS, then the OS must be made
>> aware of it, so that it doesn't enable ATS in endpoints, or else we might
>> end up with silent memory corruption as described above. (Lack of ATS may
>> slow the system down but shouldn't be fatal.)
>> If the SMMU supports ATS, then the root complex attached to it will most
>> likely supports ATS. The switch in this patch simply allows firmware to
>> confirm that.
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe.bruc...@arm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/pci-iommu.txt | 8 ++++++++
>>>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/pci-iommu.txt 
>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/pci-iommu.txt
>>>> index 0def586fdcdf..f21a68ec471a 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/pci-iommu.txt
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/pci-iommu.txt
>>>> @@ -44,6 +44,14 @@ Optional properties
>>>>  - iommu-map-mask: A mask to be applied to each Requester ID prior to being
>>>>    mapped to an IOMMU specifier per the iommu-map property.
>>>> +- ats-supported: if present, the root complex supports the Address
>>>> +  Translation Service (ATS). It is able to interpret the AT field in PCIe
>>>> +  Transaction Layer Packets, and forward Translation Completions or
>>>> +  Invalidation Requests to endpoints.
>>> Why can't this be based on the compatible strings?
>> Host controllers like the generic ECAM one should be able to advertise
>> ATS, if for instance the virtual IOMMU in Qemu offers a channel for ATS
>> invalidation. In that case we would have pci-host-{e,}cam-generic{-ats,}
>> compatible strings and double the number of compatible strings each time
>> we add a similar capability.
> It would not double the compatibles. A given SoC will either support ATS 
> or not, right? A given compatible will imply whether ATS is supported or 
> not.
> pci-host-{e,}cam-generic is a special case. I'm okay with having a 
> property for that I suppose. We should not require this property though 
> and allow for it to be implied by the SoC specific compatible as well.

The property isn't useful for host-generic since a host like Qemu can
easily disable ATS in the IOMMU. It would only be here for consistency.
Changing IOMMU registers wouldn't be as simple for a firmware running on
real hardware.

The ats-supported property aimed to provide a mechanism identical to what
IORT provides in root complex nodes, since I have to add support for that
in Linux anyway. But it is not clear what their rationale is.

I couldn't see any more reason to add it, so I'll gladly drop the patch
and replace it with something based on compatible, if you think that the
case I described above (bug in hardware, firmware cannot enable ATS in
root complex) is superfluous.


iommu mailing list

Reply via email to