On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 06:15:40PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> Now that we can properly describe the mapping between PCI RIDs and
> stream IDs via "iommu-map", and have it fed it to the driver
> automatically via of_xlate(), rework the SMMUv3 driver to benefit from
> that. Initially, this just gets rid of the misuse of the "iommus"
> binding without changing the driver's existing level of functionality,
> but does at least pave the way to extending it more easily in future.
>
> Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.mur...@arm.com>
> ---
>
> v2: New.
>
> drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c | 119
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> 1 file changed, 73 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
> index 94b68213c50d..7631639cc209 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
> @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
> #include <linux/msi.h>
> #include <linux/of.h>
> #include <linux/of_address.h>
> +#include <linux/of_iommu.h>
> #include <linux/of_platform.h>
> #include <linux/pci.h>
> #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> @@ -638,6 +639,12 @@ struct arm_smmu_domain {
> struct iommu_domain domain;
> };
>
> +/* SMMU private data for each master */
> +struct arm_smmu_master_data {
> + struct arm_smmu_device *smmu;
> + u32 sid;
> +};
Hmm, we already have this information in arm_smmu_group so I'd rather
avoid the duplication if we can.
> @@ -1804,23 +1790,41 @@ static int arm_smmu_add_device(struct device *dev)
> {
> int i, ret;
> u32 sid, *sids;
> - struct pci_dev *pdev;
> struct iommu_group *group;
> + struct device_node *np;
> struct arm_smmu_group *smmu_group;
> - struct arm_smmu_device *smmu;
> + struct arm_smmu_device *smmu = NULL;
> + struct arm_smmu_master_data *data = dev->archdata.iommu;
>
> - /* We only support PCI, for now */
> - if (!dev_is_pci(dev))
> + if (!data)
> return -ENODEV;
>
> - pdev = to_pci_dev(dev);
> + np = (struct device_node *)data->smmu;
> + smmu = data->smmu = arm_smmu_get_by_node(np);
> + of_node_put(np);
> + if (!smmu)
> + return -ENODEV;
Why can't we continue to use the group here?
Will
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
