Hi Tomasz, Thanks very much for you suggestion and explain so detail. please help check below.
On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 18:41 +0900, Tomasz Figa wrote: > Hi Yong Wu, > > Sorry for long delay, I had to figure out some time to look at this again. > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 8:22 PM, Yong Wu <yong...@mediatek.com> wrote: > >> > >> > + imudev = piommu->dev; > >> > + > >> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&priv->portlock, flags); > >> > >> What is protected by this spinlock? > > We will write a register of the local arbiter while config port. If > > some modules are in the same local arbiter, it may be overwrite. so I > > add it here. > >> > > OK. Maybe it could be called larb_lock then? It would be good to have > structures or code that should be running under this spinlock > annotated with proper comments. And purpose of the lock documented in > a comment as well (probably in a kerneldoc-style documentation of > priv). Thanks. I have move the spinlock into the smi driver, it will lock for writing the local arbiter regsiter only. > > >> > +static void mtk_iommu_detach_device(struct iommu_domain *domain, > >> > + struct device *dev) > >> > +{ > >> > >> No hardware (de)configuration or clean-up necessary? > > I will add it. Actually we design like this:If a device have attached to > > iommu domain, it won't detach from it. > > Isn't proper clean-up required for module removal? Some drivers might > be required to be loadable modules, which should be unloadable. > > >> > >> > + > >> > + piommu->protect_va = devm_kmalloc(piommu->dev, > >> > MTK_PROTECT_PA_ALIGN*2, > >> > >> style: Operators like * should have space on both sides. > >> > >> > + GFP_KERNEL); > >> > >> Shouldn't dma_alloc_coherent() be used for this? > > We don't care the data in it. I think they are the same. Could you > > help tell me why dma_alloc_coherent may be better. > > Can you guarantee that at the time you allocate the memory using > devm_kmalloc() the memory is not dirty (i.e. some write back data are > stored in CPU cache) and is not going to be written back in some time, > overwriting data put there by IOMMU hardware? > As I noted in the function "mtk_iommu_hw_init": /* protect memory,HW will write here while translation fault */ protectpa = __virt_to_phys(piommu->protect_va); We don’t care the content of this buffer, It is ok even though its data is dirty. It seem to be a the protect memory. While a translation fault happened, The iommu HW will overwrite here instead of writing to the fault physical address which may be 0 or some random address. > >> > + > >> > + iommu_set_fault_handler(domain, mtk_iommu_fault_handler, piommu); > >> > >> I don't see any other drivers doing this. Isn't this for upper layers, > >> so that they can set their own generic fault handlers? > > I think that this function is related with the iommu domain, we > > have only one multimedia iommu domain. so I add it after the iommu > > domain are created. > > No, this function is for drivers of IOMMU clients (i.e. master IP > blocks) which want to subscribe to page fault to do things like paging > on demand and so on. It shouldn't be called by IOMMU driver. Please > see other IOMMU drivers, for example rockchip-iommmu.c. Thanks. I have read it. I will delete it and print the error info in the ISR. Also call the report_iommu_fault in the ISR. > Best regards, > Tomasz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/