On 1/5/26 9:05 PM, 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()?
We have smmu_dev_properties with a DEFINE_PROP_LINK
Couldn't we add the new links there?
Eric
>
>> +}
>> +
>> 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]>
>
