On 05/04/2019 17:39, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> I'm wondering whether we can't take this a bit further and re-organise the
>>> data structures to make this a little simpler overall. Something along the
>>> lines of:
>>>
>>> struct arm_smmu_master_data {
>>> struct list_head list; // masters in the same
>>> domain
>>> struct arm_smmu_device *smmu;
>>> unsigned int num_sids;
>>> u32 *sids; // Points into fwspec
>>> struct arm_smmu_domain *domain; // NULL -> !assigned
>>> };
>>>
>>> and then just add a list_head into struct arm_smmu_domain to track the
>>> masters that have been attached (if you're feeling brave, you could put
>>> this into the s1_cfg).
>>
>> I'm not sure about that last bit, shouldn't the list of masters apply to
>> both s1 and s2?
>
> I was assuming that (a) we were only using ATS with stage-1 and (b) we only
> need the masters list for ATC invalidation. Did I go wrong somewhere?
Hmm, I messed that up in patch 3, actually. I'm still unsure about it,
but in the end I was meaning to enable ATS for both stage-1 and stage-2
domains. We could make it stage-1 only, but VFIO can assign a device
with a stage-1 domain to userspace. That's the case with QEMU, which
doesn't use VFIO_TYPE1_NESTING_IOMMU at the moment. So I don't think
limiting ATS to stage-1 protects against anything.
For (b), the master list will likely also be used for PASID support, to
invalidate cached CDs for each device in a domain, but that's only stage-1.
Then the current patchsets for nested translation also rely on the
master list to bind guest PASID tables to all devices attached
to a domain. But with those patches, s1_cfg and s2_cfg aren't in an enum
anymore and we could still keep the list in s1_cfg.
Thanks,
Jean
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
