Re: [PATCH v5 08/11] powerpc/pseries/iommu: Update remove_dma_window() to accept property name
On 17/08/2021 16:12, Leonardo Brás wrote:
On Tue, 2021-08-17 at 02:59 -0300, Leonardo Brás wrote:
Hello Fred, thanks for the feedback!
On Tue, 2021-07-20 at 19:51 +0200, Frederic Barrat wrote:
On 16/07/2021 10:27, Leonardo Bras wrote:
Update remove_dma_window() so it can be used to remove DDW with a
given
property name.
This enables the creation of new property names for DDW, so we
can
have different usage for it, like indirect mapping.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo Bras
Reviewed-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy
---
arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c | 21 +++
--
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c
b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c
index 108c3dcca686..17c6f4706e76 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c
@@ -830,31 +830,32 @@ static void remove_dma_window(struct
device_node *np, u32 *ddw_avail,
np, ret,
ddw_avail[DDW_REMOVE_PE_DMA_WIN],
liobn);
}
-static void remove_ddw(struct device_node *np, bool remove_prop)
+static int remove_ddw(struct device_node *np, bool remove_prop,
const char *win_name)
{
Why switch to returning an int? None of the callers check it.
IIRC, in a previous version it did make sense, which is not the case
anymore. I will revert this.
Thanks!
Oh, sorry about that, it is in fact still needed:
Then you should have added it in 10/11.
It will make sense in patch v5 10/11:
On iommu_reconfig_notifier(), if (action == OF_RECONFIG_DETACH_NODE),
we need to remove a DDW if it exists.
As there may be different window names, it tests for DIRECT64_PROPNAME,
and if it's not found, it tests for DMA64_PROPNAME.
This approach will skip scanning for DMA64_PROPNAME if
DIRECT64_PROPNAME was found, as both may not exist in the same node.
But for this approach to work we need remove_ddw() to return error if
the property is not found.
Does it make sense? or should I just test for both?
Or you could just try removing both without checking the return code, it
is one extra of_find_property in very rare code path. Not worth
reposting though imho. (sorry I was off last week, catching up). Thanks,
--
Alexey
Re: [PATCH v5 08/11] powerpc/pseries/iommu: Update remove_dma_window() to accept property name
On Tue, 2021-08-17 at 02:59 -0300, Leonardo Brás wrote:
> Hello Fred, thanks for the feedback!
>
> On Tue, 2021-07-20 at 19:51 +0200, Frederic Barrat wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 16/07/2021 10:27, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> > > Update remove_dma_window() so it can be used to remove DDW with a
> > > given
> > > property name.
> > >
> > > This enables the creation of new property names for DDW, so we
> > > can
> > > have different usage for it, like indirect mapping.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Leonardo Bras
> > > Reviewed-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy
> > > ---
> > > arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c | 21 +++
> > > --
> > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c
> > > b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c
> > > index 108c3dcca686..17c6f4706e76 100644
> > > --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c
> > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c
> > > @@ -830,31 +830,32 @@ static void remove_dma_window(struct
> > > device_node *np, u32 *ddw_avail,
> > > np, ret,
> > > ddw_avail[DDW_REMOVE_PE_DMA_WIN],
> > > liobn);
> > > }
> > >
> > > -static void remove_ddw(struct device_node *np, bool remove_prop)
> > > +static int remove_ddw(struct device_node *np, bool remove_prop,
> > > const char *win_name)
> > > {
> >
> >
> > Why switch to returning an int? None of the callers check it.
>
> IIRC, in a previous version it did make sense, which is not the case
> anymore. I will revert this.
>
> Thanks!
Oh, sorry about that, it is in fact still needed:
It will make sense in patch v5 10/11:
On iommu_reconfig_notifier(), if (action == OF_RECONFIG_DETACH_NODE),
we need to remove a DDW if it exists.
As there may be different window names, it tests for DIRECT64_PROPNAME,
and if it's not found, it tests for DMA64_PROPNAME.
This approach will skip scanning for DMA64_PROPNAME if
DIRECT64_PROPNAME was found, as both may not exist in the same node.
But for this approach to work we need remove_ddw() to return error if
the property is not found.
Does it make sense? or should I just test for both?
Best regards,
Leonardo Bras
Re: [PATCH v5 08/11] powerpc/pseries/iommu: Update remove_dma_window() to accept property name
Hello Fred, thanks for the feedback!
On Tue, 2021-07-20 at 19:51 +0200, Frederic Barrat wrote:
>
>
> On 16/07/2021 10:27, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> > Update remove_dma_window() so it can be used to remove DDW with a
> > given
> > property name.
> >
> > This enables the creation of new property names for DDW, so we can
> > have different usage for it, like indirect mapping.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Leonardo Bras
> > Reviewed-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy
> > ---
> > arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c | 21 +++--
> > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c
> > b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c
> > index 108c3dcca686..17c6f4706e76 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c
> > @@ -830,31 +830,32 @@ static void remove_dma_window(struct
> > device_node *np, u32 *ddw_avail,
> > np, ret, ddw_avail[DDW_REMOVE_PE_DMA_WIN],
> > liobn);
> > }
> >
> > -static void remove_ddw(struct device_node *np, bool remove_prop)
> > +static int remove_ddw(struct device_node *np, bool remove_prop,
> > const char *win_name)
> > {
>
>
> Why switch to returning an int? None of the callers check it.
IIRC, in a previous version it did make sense, which is not the case
anymore. I will revert this.
Thanks!
>
> Fred
Re: [PATCH v5 08/11] powerpc/pseries/iommu: Update remove_dma_window() to accept property name
On 16/07/2021 10:27, Leonardo Bras wrote:
Update remove_dma_window() so it can be used to remove DDW with a given
property name.
This enables the creation of new property names for DDW, so we can
have different usage for it, like indirect mapping.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo Bras
Reviewed-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy
---
arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c | 21 +++--
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c
b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c
index 108c3dcca686..17c6f4706e76 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c
@@ -830,31 +830,32 @@ static void remove_dma_window(struct device_node *np, u32
*ddw_avail,
np, ret, ddw_avail[DDW_REMOVE_PE_DMA_WIN], liobn);
}
-static void remove_ddw(struct device_node *np, bool remove_prop)
+static int remove_ddw(struct device_node *np, bool remove_prop, const char
*win_name)
{
Why switch to returning an int? None of the callers check it.
Fred
struct property *win;
u32 ddw_avail[DDW_APPLICABLE_SIZE];
int ret = 0;
+ win = of_find_property(np, win_name, NULL);
+ if (!win)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
ret = of_property_read_u32_array(np, "ibm,ddw-applicable",
_avail[0], DDW_APPLICABLE_SIZE);
if (ret)
- return;
-
- win = of_find_property(np, DIRECT64_PROPNAME, NULL);
- if (!win)
- return;
+ return 0;
if (win->length >= sizeof(struct dynamic_dma_window_prop))
remove_dma_window(np, ddw_avail, win);
if (!remove_prop)
- return;
+ return 0;
ret = of_remove_property(np, win);
if (ret)
pr_warn("%pOF: failed to remove direct window property: %d\n",
np, ret);
+ return 0;
}
static bool find_existing_ddw(struct device_node *pdn, u64 *dma_addr, int *window_shift)
@@ -907,7 +908,7 @@ static int find_existing_ddw_windows(void)
for_each_node_with_property(pdn, DIRECT64_PROPNAME) {
direct64 = of_get_property(pdn, DIRECT64_PROPNAME, );
if (!direct64 || len < sizeof(*direct64)) {
- remove_ddw(pdn, true);
+ remove_ddw(pdn, true, DIRECT64_PROPNAME);
continue;
}
@@ -1382,7 +1383,7 @@ static bool enable_ddw(struct pci_dev *dev, struct device_node *pdn)
kfree(win64);
out_remove_win:
- remove_ddw(pdn, true);
+ remove_ddw(pdn, true, DIRECT64_PROPNAME);
out_failed:
if (default_win_removed)
@@ -1547,7 +1548,7 @@ static int iommu_reconfig_notifier(struct notifier_block
*nb, unsigned long acti
* we have to remove the property when releasing
* the device node.
*/
- remove_ddw(np, false);
+ remove_ddw(np, false, DIRECT64_PROPNAME);
if (pci && pci->table_group)
iommu_pseries_free_group(pci->table_group,
np->full_name);
[PATCH v5 08/11] powerpc/pseries/iommu: Update remove_dma_window() to accept property name
Update remove_dma_window() so it can be used to remove DDW with a given
property name.
This enables the creation of new property names for DDW, so we can
have different usage for it, like indirect mapping.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo Bras
Reviewed-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy
---
arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c | 21 +++--
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c
b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c
index 108c3dcca686..17c6f4706e76 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c
@@ -830,31 +830,32 @@ static void remove_dma_window(struct device_node *np, u32
*ddw_avail,
np, ret, ddw_avail[DDW_REMOVE_PE_DMA_WIN], liobn);
}
-static void remove_ddw(struct device_node *np, bool remove_prop)
+static int remove_ddw(struct device_node *np, bool remove_prop, const char
*win_name)
{
struct property *win;
u32 ddw_avail[DDW_APPLICABLE_SIZE];
int ret = 0;
+ win = of_find_property(np, win_name, NULL);
+ if (!win)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
ret = of_property_read_u32_array(np, "ibm,ddw-applicable",
_avail[0], DDW_APPLICABLE_SIZE);
if (ret)
- return;
-
- win = of_find_property(np, DIRECT64_PROPNAME, NULL);
- if (!win)
- return;
+ return 0;
if (win->length >= sizeof(struct dynamic_dma_window_prop))
remove_dma_window(np, ddw_avail, win);
if (!remove_prop)
- return;
+ return 0;
ret = of_remove_property(np, win);
if (ret)
pr_warn("%pOF: failed to remove direct window property: %d\n",
np, ret);
+ return 0;
}
static bool find_existing_ddw(struct device_node *pdn, u64 *dma_addr, int
*window_shift)
@@ -907,7 +908,7 @@ static int find_existing_ddw_windows(void)
for_each_node_with_property(pdn, DIRECT64_PROPNAME) {
direct64 = of_get_property(pdn, DIRECT64_PROPNAME, );
if (!direct64 || len < sizeof(*direct64)) {
- remove_ddw(pdn, true);
+ remove_ddw(pdn, true, DIRECT64_PROPNAME);
continue;
}
@@ -1382,7 +1383,7 @@ static bool enable_ddw(struct pci_dev *dev, struct
device_node *pdn)
kfree(win64);
out_remove_win:
- remove_ddw(pdn, true);
+ remove_ddw(pdn, true, DIRECT64_PROPNAME);
out_failed:
if (default_win_removed)
@@ -1547,7 +1548,7 @@ static int iommu_reconfig_notifier(struct notifier_block
*nb, unsigned long acti
* we have to remove the property when releasing
* the device node.
*/
- remove_ddw(np, false);
+ remove_ddw(np, false, DIRECT64_PROPNAME);
if (pci && pci->table_group)
iommu_pseries_free_group(pci->table_group,
np->full_name);
--
2.32.0
