On 2026-01-05 12:05, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
On 17/12/25 00:57, Pierrick Bouvier wrote:
This will be used to access non-secure and secure memory. Secure support
and Granule Protection Check (for RME) for SMMU need to access secure
memory.
As well, it allows to remove usage of global address_space_memory,
allowing different SMMU instances to have a specific view of memory.
User creatable SMMU are handled as well for virt machine,
by setting the memory properties when device is plugged in.
Signed-off-by: Pierrick Bouvier <[email protected]>
---
include/hw/arm/smmu-common.h | 4 ++++
include/hw/arm/virt.h | 2 ++
hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c | 16 ++++++++++++----
hw/arm/smmu-common.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
hw/arm/virt.c | 13 +++++++++++--
5 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/arm/smmu-common.c b/hw/arm/smmu-common.c
index 62a76121841..9a67ce857fe 100644
--- a/hw/arm/smmu-common.c
+++ b/hw/arm/smmu-common.c
@@ -944,6 +944,13 @@ static void smmu_base_realize(DeviceState *dev, Error
**errp)
return;
}
+ g_assert(s->memory);
+ address_space_init(&s->memory_as, s->memory, "smmu-memory-view");
+ if (s->secure_memory) {
+ address_space_init(&s->secure_memory_as, s->secure_memory,
+ "smmu-secure-memory-view");
Else, are we sure the SMMU implementations will behave correctly?
+ }
+
/*
* We only allow default PCIe Root Complex(pcie.0) or pxb-pcie based
extra
* root complexes to be associated with SMMU.
@@ -1008,10 +1015,28 @@ static void smmu_base_class_init(ObjectClass *klass,
const void *data)
rc->phases.exit = smmu_base_reset_exit;
}
+static void smmu_base_instance_init(Object *obj)
+{
+ SMMUState *s = ARM_SMMU(obj);
+
+ object_property_add_link(obj, "memory",
+ TYPE_MEMORY_REGION,
+ (Object **)&s->memory,
+ qdev_prop_allow_set_link_before_realize,
+ OBJ_PROP_LINK_STRONG);
+
+ object_property_add_link(obj, "secure-memory",
+ TYPE_MEMORY_REGION,
+ (Object **)&s->secure_memory,
+ qdev_prop_allow_set_link_before_realize,
+ OBJ_PROP_LINK_STRONG);
Why can't we use device_class_set_props(&static_properties)
in smmu_base_class_init()?
To be honest, I simply duplicated what was done on cpu side, without
thinking too much about it.
I thought there was something about passing a memory region that
requires this, compared to having a simple property.
If you think it's important, I can try to use the function you mentioned
above.
+}
+
static const TypeInfo smmu_base_info = {
.name = TYPE_ARM_SMMU,
.parent = TYPE_SYS_BUS_DEVICE,
.instance_size = sizeof(SMMUState),
+ .instance_init = smmu_base_instance_init,
.class_data = NULL,
.class_size = sizeof(SMMUBaseClass),
.class_init = smmu_base_class_init,
Anyhow this is functional and I suppose this can be improved on top, so:
Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <[email protected]>
Thanks,
Pierrick
