On Mon, Aug 04, 2025 at 03:42:40PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> From: Leon Romanovsky <leo...@nvidia.com>
>
> Combine iommu_dma_*map_phys with iommu_dma_*map_resource interfaces in
> order to allow single phys_addr_t flow.
Some later patch deletes iommu_dma_map_resource() ? Mention that plan here?
> --- a/drivers/iommu/dma-iommu.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/dma-iommu.c
> @@ -1193,12 +1193,17 @@ static inline size_t iova_unaligned(struct
> iova_domain *iovad, phys_addr_t phys,
> dma_addr_t iommu_dma_map_phys(struct device *dev, phys_addr_t phys, size_t
> size,
> enum dma_data_direction dir, unsigned long attrs)
> {
> - bool coherent = dev_is_dma_coherent(dev);
> - int prot = dma_info_to_prot(dir, coherent, attrs);
> struct iommu_domain *domain = iommu_get_dma_domain(dev);
> struct iommu_dma_cookie *cookie = domain->iova_cookie;
> struct iova_domain *iovad = &cookie->iovad;
> dma_addr_t iova, dma_mask = dma_get_mask(dev);
> + bool coherent;
> + int prot;
> +
> + if (attrs & DMA_ATTR_MMIO)
> + return __iommu_dma_map(dev, phys, size,
> + dma_info_to_prot(dir, false, attrs) |
> IOMMU_MMIO,
> + dma_get_mask(dev));
I realize that iommu_dma_map_resource() doesn't today, but shouldn't
this be checking for swiotlb:
if (dev_use_swiotlb(dev, size, dir) &&
iova_unaligned(iovad, phys, size)) {
Except we have to fail for ATTR_MMIO?
Now that we have ATTR_MMIO, should dma_info_to_prot() just handle it
directly instead of open coding the | IOMMU_MMIO and messing with the
coherent attribute?
Jason
