On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 8:59 PM Robin Murphy <robin.mur...@arm.com> wrote:
> On 2020-04-24 4:04 pm, Ajay kumar wrote:
> > Can someone check this?
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 9:24 PM Ajay kumar <ajayn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> I have an IOMMU master which has limitations as mentioned below:
> >> 1) The IOMMU master internally executes a firmware, and the firmware memory
> >> is allocated by the same master driver.
> >> The firmware buffer address should be of the lowest range than other 
> >> address
> >> allocated by the device, or in other words, all the remaining buffer 
> >> addresses
> >> should always be in a higher range than the firmware address.
> >> 2) None of the buffer addresses should go beyond 0xC000_0000
> That particular constraint could (and perhaps should) be expressed as a
> DMA mask/limit for the device, but if you have specific requirements to

Yes Robin. We do use 0xC000_0000 address to set the DMA mask in our driver.

> place buffers at particular addresses then you might be better off
> managing your own IOMMU domain like some other (mostly DRM) drivers do.

If you remember any of such drivers can you please point the driver path ?

> The DMA APIs don't offer any guarantees about what addresses you'll get
> other than that they won't exceed the appropriate mask.

True, we have gone through most of the APIs and didn't find any way to match our
requirements with the existing DMA APIs

> >> example:
> >> If firmware buffer address is buf_fw = 0x8000_5000;
> >> All other addresses given to the device should be greater than
> >> (0x8000_5000 + firmware size) and less than 0xC000_0000
> Out of curiosity, how do you control that in the no-IOMMU or IOMMU
> passthrough cases?

We manage the no-IOMMU or pass through cases using the reserved-memory.

> Robin.
> >> Currently, this is being handled with one of the below hacks:
> >> 1) By keeping dma_mask in lower range while allocating firmware buffer,
> >> and then increasing the dma_mask to higher range for other buffers.
> >> 2) By reserving IOVA for firmware at the lowest range and creating direct 
> >> mappings for the same.
> >>
> >> I want to know if there is a better way this can be handled with current 
> >> framework,
> >> or if anybody is facing similar problems with their devices,
> >> please share how it is taken care.
> >>
> >> I also think there should be some way the masters can specify the IOVA
> >> range they want to limit to for current allocation.
> >> Something like a new iommu_ops callback like below:
> >> limit_iova_alloc_range(dev, iova_start, iova_end)
> >>
> >> And, in my driver, the sequence will be:
> >> limit_iova_alloc_range(dev, 0x0000_0000, 0x1000_0000); /* via helpers */
> >> alloc( ) firmware buffer using DMA API
> >> limit_iova_alloc_range(dev, 0x1000_0000, 0xC000_0000); /* via helpers */
> >> alloc( ) other buffers using DMA API
> >>

Just want to understand more from you, on the new iommu_ops we suggested.
Shouldn't device have that flexibility to allocate IOVA as per it's requirement?
If you see our device as example, we need to have control on the
allocated IOVA region
based on where device is using this buffer.

If we have these callbacks in place, then the low level IOMMU driver
can implement and
manage such requests when needed.

If this can't be taken forward for some right reasons, then we will
definitely try to understand
on how to manage the IOMMU domain from our driver as per your suggestion

- Shaik.

> >> Thanks,
> >> Ajay Kumar
iommu mailing list

Reply via email to