On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:18:19AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:17:39AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:14:53AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 03:11:59PM -0600, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> > > > From: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpa...@amd.com>
> > > >
> > > > Add PCIe SMMU device tree node for AMD Seattle SOC.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpa...@amd.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/amd/amd-seattle-soc.dtsi | 23
> > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amd/amd-seattle-soc.dtsi
> > > > b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amd/amd-seattle-soc.dtsi
> > > > index a7fc059..bfccfea 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amd/amd-seattle-soc.dtsi
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amd/amd-seattle-soc.dtsi
> > > > @@ -210,6 +210,7 @@
> > > > device_type = "pci";
> > > > bus-range = <0 0x7f>;
> > > > msi-parent = <&v2m0>;
> > > > + #stream-id-cells = <16>;
> > > > reg = <0 0xf0000000 0 0x10000000>;
> > > >
> > > > interrupt-map-mask = <0xf800 0x0 0x0 0x7>;
> > > > @@ -230,6 +231,28 @@
> > > > <0x03000000 0x01 0x00000000 0x01
> > > > 0x00000000 0x7f 0x00000000>;
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > + pcie0_smmu: smmu@e0a00000 {
> > > > + compatible = "arm,mmu-401";
> > > > + reg = <0 0xe0a00000 0 0x10000>;
> > > > + #global-interrupts = <1>;
> > > > + interrupts = /* Uses combined intr for both
> > > > + * global and context
> > > > + */
> > > > + <0 333 4>,
> > > > + <0 333 4>;
> > > > + /* Note:
> > > > + * SID[2:0] = PCIe function number
> > > > + * SID[7:3] = PCIe device number
> > > > + * SID[14:8] = PCIe bus number
> > > > + */
> > > > + mmu-masters = <&pcie0
> > > > + /* 1:00:[0,3] */ 256 257 258 259
> > > > + /* 2:00:[0,3] */ 512 513 514 515
> > > > + /* 3:00:[0,3] */ 768 769 770 771
> > > > + /* 4:00:[0,3] */ 1024 1025 1026 1027
> > > > + >;
> > > > + };
> > >
> > > This doesn't look right to me.
> > >
> > > I didn't think that RID->SID mapping was actually defined by any
> > > binding, so (how) are these numbers used?
> > >
> > > I'm uncomfortable with this, given we should be moving towards the
> > > generic IOMMU binding (and then we'd use the iommu-map binding [1] for
> > > this).
> > >
> > > Will, Robin, thoughts?
> >
> > The driver currently assumes a 1:1 RID:SID mapping when it sees a PCI
> > device, so those numbers should be ignored.
>
> Given that, they shouldn't be in the DT, then?
Not unless there's a patch extending the driver/binding so that they do
something useful, no.
Will
