Hi Keqian, On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 05:13:50PM +0800, Keqian Zhu wrote: > > We need to accommodate the firmware override as well if we need this to be > > meaningful. Jean-Philippe is already carrying a suitable patch in the SVA > > stack[1]. > Robin, Thanks for pointing it out. > > Jean, I see that the IORT HTTU flag overrides the hardware register info > unconditionally. I have some concern about it: > > If the override flag has HTTU but hardware doesn't support it, then driver > will use this feature but receive access fault or permission fault from SMMU > unexpectedly. > 1) If IOPF is not supported, then kernel can not work normally. > 2) If IOPF is supported, kernel will perform useless actions, such as HTTU > based dma dirty tracking (this series). > > As the IORT spec doesn't give an explicit explanation for HTTU override, can > we comprehend it as a mask for HTTU related hardware register?
To me "Overrides the value of SMMU_IDR0.HTTU" is clear enough: disregard the value of SMMU_IDR0.HTTU and use the one specified by IORT instead. And that's both ways, since there is no validity mask for the IORT value: if there is an IORT table, always ignore SMMU_IDR0.HTTU. That's how the SMMU driver implements the COHACC bit, which has the same wording in IORT. So I think we should implement HTTU the same way. One complication is that there is no equivalent override for device tree. I think it can be added later if necessary, because unlike IORT it can be tri state (property not present, overriden positive, overridden negative). Thanks, Jean _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
