On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:39 AM, Hiroshi Doyu <hd...@nvidia.com> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> Rob Herring <robherri...@gmail.com> wrote @ Tue, 19 Nov 2013 21:45:02 +0100:
>
>> On 11/19/2013 11:35 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>> > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 09:40:54AM +0000, Hiroshi Doyu wrote:
>> >> Grant Likely <grant.lik...@secretlab.ca> wrote @ Fri, 15 Nov 2013
>> >> 08:06:27 +0100:
>> >>> On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 10:47:23 +0100, Hiroshi Doyu <hd...@nvidia.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>> 1, When a device is populated, it checks if that device is IOMMU'able
>> >>>> or not. This is identified by "#stream-id-cells" in DT. If
>> >>>> a device is normal(non IOMMU), a device is populated. If a device
>> >>>> is IOMMU'able, it continues to be checked.
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
>> >>>> I'm not so sure if this dependecy on "#stream-id-cells" is acceptable
>> >>>> or not, but I haven't any better idea right now.
>> >>>
>> >>> It seems a little fragile to me too. I'd rather the IOMMU requirement be
>> >>> described more explicitly.
>>
>> I don't see how this can work. Typically you find a property and then
>> read the relevant #*-cells to determine the size. Having multiple cell
>> properties is asking for errors.
>
> The above was mentioned for PATCHv4 series[1], which used the arm,smmu
> DT bindings, "#stream-id-cells" in clients and "mmu-masters" in
> iommu.
>
> In PATCHv5[2], we took the following DT binding where multiple cell
> properties seem to work ok.
>
> smmu_a: iommu@xxxxxxxx {
> #iommu-cells = <2>;
> ....
> };
>
> smmu_b: iommu@xxxxxxxx {
> #iommu-cells = <3>;
> ....
> };
>
> device_a {
> iommus = <&smmu_a param1 param2>,
> <&smmu_b param1 param2 param3>;
> };
>
> This can describe the relation between a device and an iommu
> independently. The number of params needed for each IOMMU can be
> sepcified by #iommu-cells in its iommu entry.
>
> device_a <-> smmu_a, needs 2 params for a device
> device_a <-> smmu_b, needs 3 params for a device
>
> For example, "smmu_a" can be an bus level global IOMMU where all child
> devices can be an master of "smmu_a", and "smmu_b" is a local IOMMU
> only for "device_a".
>
> "memory controller"---"smmu_a"---bus--+--"smmu_b"--"device_a"
> |
> |
> +--"device_b"
I think the above binding would be the correct way to describe things
if you have 1 device connected to 2 IOMMUs (directly rather than
chained). IIUC, that is something you have on tegra?
For the topology above where you are chaining iommu's, I think
something like this is more accurately describing the hierarchy:
smmu_b: iommu@xxxxxxxx {
#iommu-cells = <3>;
iommus = <&smmu_a param1 param2>;
....
};
device_a {
iommus = <&smmu_b param1 param2 param3>;
};
I remember discussing this with Will and seem to recall some issue
with describing things this way. But looking at it now, I don't see
what that was.
>> >> I think that Will Deacon can do better than I.
>> >
>> > I already commented briefly here:
>> >
>> > http://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg11513.html
>> >
>> > basically deferring to DT people :)
>> >
>> > Anyway, I'm happy to tighten up the IOMMU requirement description but
>> > *not* at the expense of breaking what we currently have for the ARM SMMU,
>> > which is being used by Calxeda.
>> >
>> > Adding Andreas and Rob for input on potential binding additions to the
>> > SMMU.
>>
>> The above proposal would be an incompatible change. However, I think we
>> could still deal with a change in this binding at this stage.
>>
>> One way approach to handle this without changing the binding would be to
>> scan the DT for all iommu's up front and create a list of all nodes and
>> their iommu parent. The fact that the hierarchy is described in a way
>> that doesn't fit Linux well is really a Linux implementation detail.
>
> I may need some implementation to understand this further.
>
>> If changing the binding, a simple approach would be to allow
>> 'smmu-parent' to be a bus and/or device property and not just for
>> chained iommu's. This could be a global or bus property that is
>> inherited. Like interrupt-parent, you would have to deal with the parent
>> being itself. Also, perhaps iommu-parent would be a better name. In any
>> case, I'd like to see this all be a generic iommu binding.
>
> I guess that this would work.
>
> One concern to this may be that there might be the case where IOMMU
> hierarchy doesn't always follow the bus's one, I guess. I'm not so
> sure if it's an good example, but, platform_bus itself doesn't follow
> the actual bus hierarchy at all. But if we start to describe the bus
> hierarchy(adding a specific bus) we'll loose the benefit of
> platform_bus, where we can share almost all devices in a single
> driver.
It is not trying to follow the bus hierarchy. Inheritance is just a
convenience. Interrupts don't follow the bus hierarchy either.
Rob
>
> OTOH, do you see any limitations of point-to-point connections between
> a device and IOMMUs, described in the above "device_a" and "smmu_[a|b]"?
>
> [1] http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/iommu/2013-November/006931.html
> [2] http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/iommu/2013-November/007004.html
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
