Re: [Xen-devel] xen/arm: Hiding SMMUs from Dom0 when using ACPI on Xen

[Manish Jaggi]

On 5/19/2017 1:39 AM, Julien Grall wrote:



On 18/05/2017 21:02, Manish Jaggi wrote:

In the IORT table using the  PCI-RC node, SMMU node and ITS node,
RID->StreamID->Device-ID  mapping can be generated.
As per IORT spec toady, same RID can be mapped to different StreamIDs
using two ID Array elements with same RID range but different output
reference.
There exists no use case for such a scenario hence a clarification is
required in IORT spec which states that RID range cannot overlap in the
ID array.


I understand that.



with this clarification in place, it is straight-forward to map RID to a
device-ID by replacing output of SMMU to output of RCI-RC


I am not sure to follow your suggestion here. But I will wait a patch 
before commenting.



Please see [RFC] [PATCH] arm-acpi: Hide SMMU from IORT for hardware domain

Cheers,




___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] xen/arm: Hiding SMMUs from Dom0 when using ACPI on Xen

[Julien Grall]

On 18/05/2017 21:02, Manish Jaggi wrote:

In the IORT table using the  PCI-RC node, SMMU node and ITS node,
RID->StreamID->Device-ID  mapping can be generated.
As per IORT spec toady, same RID can be mapped to different StreamIDs
using two ID Array elements with same RID range but different output
reference.
There exists no use case for such a scenario hence a clarification is
required in IORT spec which states that RID range cannot overlap in the
ID array.


I understand that.



with this clarification in place, it is straight-forward to map RID to a
device-ID by replacing output of SMMU to output of RCI-RC


I am not sure to follow your suggestion here. But I will wait a patch 
before commenting.


Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] xen/arm: Hiding SMMUs from Dom0 when using ACPI on Xen

[Manish Jaggi]

Hi Julien,

On 5/18/2017 8:27 PM, Julien Grall wrote:

Hello,

On 18/05/17 12:59, Manish Jaggi wrote:

On 2/27/2017 11:42 PM, Julien Grall wrote:

On 02/27/2017 04:58 PM, Shanker Donthineni wrote:

Hi Julien,


Hi Shanker,

Please don't drop people in CC. In my case, any e-mail I am not CCed
are skipping my inbox and I may not read them for a while.



On 02/27/2017 08:12 AM, Julien Grall wrote:



On 27/02/17 13:23, Vijay Kilari wrote:

Hi Julien,


Hello Vijay,


On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Julien Grall 
wrote:

Hello,

There was few discussions recently about hiding SMMUs from DOM0 
when

using
ACPI. I thought it would be good to have a separate thread for 
this.


When using ACPI, the SMMUs will be described in the IO Remapping
Table
(IORT). The specification can be found on the ARM website [1].

For a brief summary, the IORT can be used to discover the SMMUs
present on
the platform and find for a given device the ID to configure
components such
as ITS (DeviceID) and SMMU (StreamID).

The appendix A in the specification gives an example how 
DeviceID and

StreamID can be found. For instance, when a PCI device is both
protected by
an SMMU and MSI-capable the following translation will happen:
RID -> StreamID -> DeviceID

Currently, SMMUs are hidden from DOM0 because they are been used by
Xen and
we don't support stage-1 SMMU. If we pass the IORT as it is, DOM0
will try
to initialize SMMU and crash.

I first thought about using a Xen specific way (STAO) or 
extending a

flag in
IORT. But that is not ideal.

So we would have to rewrite the IORT for DOM0. Given that a 
range of

RID can
mapped to multiple ranges of DeviceID,
Do you envisage a scenario where same RID can map to multiple StreamIDs 
belonging to different SMMUs ?

we would have to translate
RID one by
one to find the associated DeviceID. I think this may end up to
complex code
and have a big IORT table.


Why can't we replace Output base of IORT of PCI node with SMMU 
output

base?.
I mean similar to PCI node without SMMU, why can't replace output 
base

of PCI node with
SMMU's output base?.


Because I don't see anything in the spec preventing one RC ID mapping
to produce multiple SMMU ID mapping. So which output base would you
use?



Basically, remove SMMU nodes, and replaces output of the PCIe and 
named

nodes ID mappings with ITS nodes.

RID --> StreamID  --> dviceID  --> ITS device id = RID --> dviceID  
-->

ITS device id


Can you detail it? You seem to assume that one RC ID mapping range
will only produce ID mapping range. AFAICT, this is not mandated by
the spec.


You are correct that it is not mandated by the spec, but AFAIK there
seems to be no valid use case for that.


Xen has to be compliant with the spec, if the spec says something then 
we should do it unless there is a strong reason not to.


In this case, it is not too difficult to implement the suggestion I 
wrote a couple of months ago. So why would we try to put us in a corner?



See below


RID range should not overlap between ID Array entries.


I believe you misunderstood my point here. So let me give an example. 
My understanding of the spec is it is possible to have:


RC A
 // doesn't use SMMU 0 so just outputs DeviceIDs to ITS GROUP 0
 // Input ID --> Output reference: Output ID
0x-0x --> ITS GROUP 0 : 0x->0x

SMMU 0
// Note that range of StreamIDs that map to DeviceIDs excludes
// the NIC 0 DeviceID as it does not generate MSIs
 // Input ID --> Output reference: Output ID
0x-0x01ff --> ITS GROUP 0 : 0x1->0x101ff
0x0200-0x --> ITS GROUP 0 : 0x2->0x207ff

// SMMU 0 Control interrupt is MSI based
 // Input ID --> Output reference: Output ID
N/A --> ITS GROUP 0 : 0x21

I could have misunderstood so I am stating my understanding so far .. 
please feel free to correct me :)


In the IORT table using the  PCI-RC node, SMMU node and ITS node, 
RID->StreamID->Device-ID  mapping can be generated.
As per IORT spec toady, same RID can be mapped to different StreamIDs 
using two ID Array elements with same RID range but different output 
reference.
There exists no use case for such a scenario hence a clarification is 
required in IORT spec which states that RID range cannot overlap in the 
ID array.


with this clarification in place, it is straight-forward to map RID to a 
device-ID by replacing output of SMMU to output of RCI-RC



I believe this would be updated in the next IORT spec revision.


Well, Xen should still support current revision of IORT even if the 
next version add more restriction.


Cheers,



-Manish


___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] xen/arm: Hiding SMMUs from Dom0 when using ACPI on Xen

[Julien Grall]

Hello,

On 18/05/17 12:59, Manish Jaggi wrote:

On 2/27/2017 11:42 PM, Julien Grall wrote:

On 02/27/2017 04:58 PM, Shanker Donthineni wrote:

Hi Julien,


Hi Shanker,

Please don't drop people in CC. In my case, any e-mail I am not CCed
are skipping my inbox and I may not read them for a while.



On 02/27/2017 08:12 AM, Julien Grall wrote:



On 27/02/17 13:23, Vijay Kilari wrote:

Hi Julien,


Hello Vijay,


On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Julien Grall 
wrote:

Hello,

There was few discussions recently about hiding SMMUs from DOM0 when
using
ACPI. I thought it would be good to have a separate thread for this.

When using ACPI, the SMMUs will be described in the IO Remapping
Table
(IORT). The specification can be found on the ARM website [1].

For a brief summary, the IORT can be used to discover the SMMUs
present on
the platform and find for a given device the ID to configure
components such
as ITS (DeviceID) and SMMU (StreamID).

The appendix A in the specification gives an example how DeviceID and
StreamID can be found. For instance, when a PCI device is both
protected by
an SMMU and MSI-capable the following translation will happen:
RID -> StreamID -> DeviceID

Currently, SMMUs are hidden from DOM0 because they are been used by
Xen and
we don't support stage-1 SMMU. If we pass the IORT as it is, DOM0
will try
to initialize SMMU and crash.

I first thought about using a Xen specific way (STAO) or extending a
flag in
IORT. But that is not ideal.

So we would have to rewrite the IORT for DOM0. Given that a range of
RID can
mapped to multiple ranges of DeviceID, we would have to translate
RID one by
one to find the associated DeviceID. I think this may end up to
complex code
and have a big IORT table.


Why can't we replace Output base of IORT of PCI node with SMMU output
base?.
I mean similar to PCI node without SMMU, why can't replace output base
of PCI node with
SMMU's output base?.


Because I don't see anything in the spec preventing one RC ID mapping
to produce multiple SMMU ID mapping. So which output base would you
use?



Basically, remove SMMU nodes, and replaces output of the PCIe and named
nodes ID mappings with ITS nodes.

RID --> StreamID  --> dviceID  --> ITS device id = RID --> dviceID  -->
ITS device id


Can you detail it? You seem to assume that one RC ID mapping range
will only produce ID mapping range. AFAICT, this is not mandated by
the spec.


You are correct that it is not mandated by the spec, but AFAIK there
seems to be no valid use case for that.


Xen has to be compliant with the spec, if the spec says something then 
we should do it unless there is a strong reason not to.


In this case, it is not too difficult to implement the suggestion I 
wrote a couple of months ago. So why would we try to put us in a corner?




RID range should not overlap between ID Array entries.


I believe you misunderstood my point here. So let me give an example. My 
understanding of the spec is it is possible to have:


RC A
 // doesn't use SMMU 0 so just outputs DeviceIDs to ITS GROUP 0
 // Input ID --> Output reference: Output ID
0x-0x --> ITS GROUP 0 : 0x->0x

SMMU 0
// Note that range of StreamIDs that map to DeviceIDs excludes
// the NIC 0 DeviceID as it does not generate MSIs
 // Input ID --> Output reference: Output ID
0x-0x01ff --> ITS GROUP 0 : 0x1->0x101ff
0x0200-0x --> ITS GROUP 0 : 0x2->0x207ff

// SMMU 0 Control interrupt is MSI based
 // Input ID --> Output reference: Output ID
N/A --> ITS GROUP 0 : 0x21


I believe this would be updated in the next IORT spec revision.


Well, Xen should still support current revision of IORT even if the next 
version add more restriction.


Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] xen/arm: Hiding SMMUs from Dom0 when using ACPI on Xen

[Manish Jaggi]

+Chales.

Hi Julien,

On 2/27/2017 11:42 PM, Julien Grall wrote:

On 02/27/2017 04:58 PM, Shanker Donthineni wrote:

Hi Julien,


Hi Shanker,

Please don't drop people in CC. In my case, any e-mail I am not CCed 
are skipping my inbox and I may not read them for a while.




On 02/27/2017 08:12 AM, Julien Grall wrote:



On 27/02/17 13:23, Vijay Kilari wrote:

Hi Julien,


Hello Vijay,


On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Julien Grall 
wrote:

Hello,

There was few discussions recently about hiding SMMUs from DOM0 when
using
ACPI. I thought it would be good to have a separate thread for this.

When using ACPI, the SMMUs will be described in the IO Remapping 
Table

(IORT). The specification can be found on the ARM website [1].

For a brief summary, the IORT can be used to discover the SMMUs
present on
the platform and find for a given device the ID to configure
components such
as ITS (DeviceID) and SMMU (StreamID).

The appendix A in the specification gives an example how DeviceID and
StreamID can be found. For instance, when a PCI device is both
protected by
an SMMU and MSI-capable the following translation will happen:
RID -> StreamID -> DeviceID

Currently, SMMUs are hidden from DOM0 because they are been used by
Xen and
we don't support stage-1 SMMU. If we pass the IORT as it is, DOM0
will try
to initialize SMMU and crash.

I first thought about using a Xen specific way (STAO) or extending a
flag in
IORT. But that is not ideal.

So we would have to rewrite the IORT for DOM0. Given that a range of
RID can
mapped to multiple ranges of DeviceID, we would have to translate
RID one by
one to find the associated DeviceID. I think this may end up to
complex code
and have a big IORT table.


Why can't we replace Output base of IORT of PCI node with SMMU output
base?.
I mean similar to PCI node without SMMU, why can't replace output base
of PCI node with
SMMU's output base?.


Because I don't see anything in the spec preventing one RC ID mapping
to produce multiple SMMU ID mapping. So which output base would you 
use?




Basically, remove SMMU nodes, and replaces output of the PCIe and named
nodes ID mappings with ITS nodes.

RID --> StreamID  --> dviceID  --> ITS device id = RID --> dviceID  -->
ITS device id


Can you detail it? You seem to assume that one RC ID mapping range 
will only produce ID mapping range. AFAICT, this is not mandated by 
the spec.


You are correct that it is not mandated by the spec, but AFAIK there 
seems to be no valid use case for that.


RID range should not overlap between ID Array entries.
I believe this would be updated in the next IORT spec revision.

I have started working on recreating iort for dom0 with this restriction.




The issue I see is RID is [15:0] where is DeviceID is [17:0].


Actuality device id is 32bit field.



However, given that DeviceID will be used by DOM0 to only configure
the ITS.
We have no need to use to have the DOM0 DeviceID equal to the host
DeviceID.
So I think we could simplify our life by generating DeviceID for
each RID
range.


If DOM0 DeviceID != host Device ID, then we cannot initialize ITS
using DOM0
ITS commands (MAPD). So, is it concluded that ITS initializes all the
devices
with platform specific Device ID's in Xen?.


Initializing ITS using DOM0 ITS command is a workaround until we get
PCI passthrough done. It would still be possible to implement that
with vDeviceID != pDeviceID as Xen would likely have the mapping
between the 2 DeviceID.



I believe mapping dom0 ITS commands to XEN ITS commands one to one is
the better approach.  Physical DeviceID is unique per ITS group, not a
system wide unique ID.


As for guest, you don't care about the virtual DeviceID for DOM0 as 
long as you are able to map it to the host ITS and host DeviceID.


> In case of direct VLPI,  LPI number has to be

programmed whenever dom0/domU calls the MAPTI command but not at the
time of PCIe device creation.


I am a bit confused. Why are you speaking about direct vLPI here? This 
has no relation with the IORT.


Cheers,




___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] xen/arm: Hiding SMMUs from Dom0 when using ACPI on Xen

[Julien Grall]

On 02/27/2017 04:58 PM, Shanker Donthineni wrote:

Hi Julien,


Hi Shanker,

Please don't drop people in CC. In my case, any e-mail I am not CCed are 
skipping my inbox and I may not read them for a while.




On 02/27/2017 08:12 AM, Julien Grall wrote:



On 27/02/17 13:23, Vijay Kilari wrote:

Hi Julien,


Hello Vijay,


On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Julien Grall 
wrote:

Hello,

There was few discussions recently about hiding SMMUs from DOM0 when
using
ACPI. I thought it would be good to have a separate thread for this.

When using ACPI, the SMMUs will be described in the IO Remapping Table
(IORT). The specification can be found on the ARM website [1].

For a brief summary, the IORT can be used to discover the SMMUs
present on
the platform and find for a given device the ID to configure
components such
as ITS (DeviceID) and SMMU (StreamID).

The appendix A in the specification gives an example how DeviceID and
StreamID can be found. For instance, when a PCI device is both
protected by
an SMMU and MSI-capable the following translation will happen:
RID -> StreamID -> DeviceID

Currently, SMMUs are hidden from DOM0 because they are been used by
Xen and
we don't support stage-1 SMMU. If we pass the IORT as it is, DOM0
will try
to initialize SMMU and crash.

I first thought about using a Xen specific way (STAO) or extending a
flag in
IORT. But that is not ideal.

So we would have to rewrite the IORT for DOM0. Given that a range of
RID can
mapped to multiple ranges of DeviceID, we would have to translate
RID one by
one to find the associated DeviceID. I think this may end up to
complex code
and have a big IORT table.


Why can't we replace Output base of IORT of PCI node with SMMU output
base?.
I mean similar to PCI node without SMMU, why can't replace output base
of PCI node with
SMMU's output base?.


Because I don't see anything in the spec preventing one RC ID mapping
to produce multiple SMMU ID mapping. So which output base would you use?



Basically, remove SMMU nodes, and replaces output of the PCIe and named
nodes ID mappings with ITS nodes.

RID --> StreamID  --> dviceID  --> ITS device id = RID --> dviceID  -->
ITS device id


Can you detail it? You seem to assume that one RC ID mapping range will 
only produce ID mapping range. AFAICT, this is not mandated by the spec.






The issue I see is RID is [15:0] where is DeviceID is [17:0].


Actuality device id is 32bit field.



However, given that DeviceID will be used by DOM0 to only configure
the ITS.
We have no need to use to have the DOM0 DeviceID equal to the host
DeviceID.
So I think we could simplify our life by generating DeviceID for
each RID
range.


If DOM0 DeviceID != host Device ID, then we cannot initialize ITS
using DOM0
ITS commands (MAPD). So, is it concluded that ITS initializes all the
devices
with platform specific Device ID's in Xen?.


Initializing ITS using DOM0 ITS command is a workaround until we get
PCI passthrough done. It would still be possible to implement that
with vDeviceID != pDeviceID as Xen would likely have the mapping
between the 2 DeviceID.



I believe mapping dom0 ITS commands to XEN ITS commands one to one is
the better approach.  Physical DeviceID is unique per ITS group, not a
system wide unique ID.


As for guest, you don't care about the virtual DeviceID for DOM0 as long 
as you are able to map it to the host ITS and host DeviceID.


> In case of direct VLPI,  LPI number has to be

programmed whenever dom0/domU calls the MAPTI command but not at the
time of PCIe device creation.


I am a bit confused. Why are you speaking about direct vLPI here? This 
has no relation with the IORT.


Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] xen/arm: Hiding SMMUs from Dom0 when using ACPI on Xen

[Shanker Donthineni]

Hi Julien,


On 02/27/2017 08:12 AM, Julien Grall wrote:



On 27/02/17 13:23, Vijay Kilari wrote:

Hi Julien,


Hello Vijay,

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Julien Grall  
wrote:

Hello,

There was few discussions recently about hiding SMMUs from DOM0 when 
using

ACPI. I thought it would be good to have a separate thread for this.

When using ACPI, the SMMUs will be described in the IO Remapping Table
(IORT). The specification can be found on the ARM website [1].

For a brief summary, the IORT can be used to discover the SMMUs 
present on
the platform and find for a given device the ID to configure 
components such

as ITS (DeviceID) and SMMU (StreamID).

The appendix A in the specification gives an example how DeviceID and
StreamID can be found. For instance, when a PCI device is both 
protected by

an SMMU and MSI-capable the following translation will happen:
RID -> StreamID -> DeviceID

Currently, SMMUs are hidden from DOM0 because they are been used by 
Xen and
we don't support stage-1 SMMU. If we pass the IORT as it is, DOM0 
will try

to initialize SMMU and crash.

I first thought about using a Xen specific way (STAO) or extending a 
flag in

IORT. But that is not ideal.

So we would have to rewrite the IORT for DOM0. Given that a range of 
RID can
mapped to multiple ranges of DeviceID, we would have to translate 
RID one by
one to find the associated DeviceID. I think this may end up to 
complex code

and have a big IORT table.


Why can't we replace Output base of IORT of PCI node with SMMU output 
base?.

I mean similar to PCI node without SMMU, why can't replace output base
of PCI node with
SMMU's output base?.


Because I don't see anything in the spec preventing one RC ID mapping 
to produce multiple SMMU ID mapping. So which output base would you use?




Basically, remove SMMU nodes, and replaces output of the PCIe and named 
nodes ID mappings with ITS nodes.


RID --> StreamID  --> dviceID  --> ITS device id = RID --> dviceID  --> 
ITS device id




The issue I see is RID is [15:0] where is DeviceID is [17:0].


Actuality device id is 32bit field.



However, given that DeviceID will be used by DOM0 to only configure 
the ITS.
We have no need to use to have the DOM0 DeviceID equal to the host 
DeviceID.
So I think we could simplify our life by generating DeviceID for 
each RID

range.


If DOM0 DeviceID != host Device ID, then we cannot initialize ITS 
using DOM0
ITS commands (MAPD). So, is it concluded that ITS initializes all the 
devices

with platform specific Device ID's in Xen?.


Initializing ITS using DOM0 ITS command is a workaround until we get 
PCI passthrough done. It would still be possible to implement that 
with vDeviceID != pDeviceID as Xen would likely have the mapping 
between the 2 DeviceID.




I believe mapping dom0 ITS commands to XEN ITS commands one to one is 
the better approach.  Physical DeviceID is unique per ITS group, not a 
system wide unique ID. In case of direct VLPI,  LPI number has to be 
programmed whenever dom0/domU calls the MAPTI command but not at the 
time of PCIe device creation.



--
Shanker Donthineni
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm 
Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux 
Foundation Collaborative Project.


___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] xen/arm: Hiding SMMUs from Dom0 when using ACPI on Xen

[Julien Grall]

On 27/02/17 13:23, Vijay Kilari wrote:

Hi Julien,


Hello Vijay,


On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Julien Grall  wrote:

Hello,

There was few discussions recently about hiding SMMUs from DOM0 when using
ACPI. I thought it would be good to have a separate thread for this.

When using ACPI, the SMMUs will be described in the IO Remapping Table
(IORT). The specification can be found on the ARM website [1].

For a brief summary, the IORT can be used to discover the SMMUs present on
the platform and find for a given device the ID to configure components such
as ITS (DeviceID) and SMMU (StreamID).

The appendix A in the specification gives an example how DeviceID and
StreamID can be found. For instance, when a PCI device is both protected by
an SMMU and MSI-capable the following translation will happen:
RID -> StreamID -> DeviceID

Currently, SMMUs are hidden from DOM0 because they are been used by Xen and
we don't support stage-1 SMMU. If we pass the IORT as it is, DOM0 will try
to initialize SMMU and crash.

I first thought about using a Xen specific way (STAO) or extending a flag in
IORT. But that is not ideal.

So we would have to rewrite the IORT for DOM0. Given that a range of RID can
mapped to multiple ranges of DeviceID, we would have to translate RID one by
one to find the associated DeviceID. I think this may end up to complex code
and have a big IORT table.


Why can't we replace Output base of IORT of PCI node with SMMU output base?.
I mean similar to PCI node without SMMU, why can't replace output base
of PCI node with
SMMU's output base?.


Because I don't see anything in the spec preventing one RC ID mapping to 
produce multiple SMMU ID mapping. So which output base would you use?




The issue I see is RID is [15:0] where is DeviceID is [17:0].



However, given that DeviceID will be used by DOM0 to only configure the ITS.
We have no need to use to have the DOM0 DeviceID equal to the host DeviceID.
So I think we could simplify our life by generating DeviceID for each RID
range.


If DOM0 DeviceID != host Device ID, then we cannot initialize ITS using DOM0
ITS commands (MAPD). So, is it concluded that ITS initializes all the devices
with platform specific Device ID's in Xen?.


Initializing ITS using DOM0 ITS command is a workaround until we get PCI 
passthrough done. It would still be possible to implement that with 
vDeviceID != pDeviceID as Xen would likely have the mapping between the 
2 DeviceID.


Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] xen/arm: Hiding SMMUs from Dom0 when using ACPI on Xen

[Vijay Kilari]

Hi Julien,

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Julien Grall  wrote:
> Hello,
>
> There was few discussions recently about hiding SMMUs from DOM0 when using
> ACPI. I thought it would be good to have a separate thread for this.
>
> When using ACPI, the SMMUs will be described in the IO Remapping Table
> (IORT). The specification can be found on the ARM website [1].
>
> For a brief summary, the IORT can be used to discover the SMMUs present on
> the platform and find for a given device the ID to configure components such
> as ITS (DeviceID) and SMMU (StreamID).
>
> The appendix A in the specification gives an example how DeviceID and
> StreamID can be found. For instance, when a PCI device is both protected by
> an SMMU and MSI-capable the following translation will happen:
> RID -> StreamID -> DeviceID
>
> Currently, SMMUs are hidden from DOM0 because they are been used by Xen and
> we don't support stage-1 SMMU. If we pass the IORT as it is, DOM0 will try
> to initialize SMMU and crash.
>
> I first thought about using a Xen specific way (STAO) or extending a flag in
> IORT. But that is not ideal.
>
> So we would have to rewrite the IORT for DOM0. Given that a range of RID can
> mapped to multiple ranges of DeviceID, we would have to translate RID one by
> one to find the associated DeviceID. I think this may end up to complex code
> and have a big IORT table.

Why can't we replace Output base of IORT of PCI node with SMMU output base?.
I mean similar to PCI node without SMMU, why can't replace output base
of PCI node with
SMMU's output base?.

The issue I see is RID is [15:0] where is DeviceID is [17:0].

>
> However, given that DeviceID will be used by DOM0 to only configure the ITS.
> We have no need to use to have the DOM0 DeviceID equal to the host DeviceID.
> So I think we could simplify our life by generating DeviceID for each RID
> range.

If DOM0 DeviceID != host Device ID, then we cannot initialize ITS using DOM0
ITS commands (MAPD). So, is it concluded that ITS initializes all the devices
with platform specific Device ID's in Xen?.

>
> Any opinions?
>
> Cheers,
>
> [1]
> http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.den0049b/DEN0049B_IO_Remapping_Table.pdf
>
> --
> Julien Grall
>
> ___
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel