On 20/02/15 13:34, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-01-30 at 18:49 +0000, Julien Grall wrote:
>> @@ -2896,6 +2911,16 @@ static __init int arm_smmu_dt_init(struct
>> dt_device_node *dev,
>> if ( !rc )
>> iommu_set_ops(&arm_smmu_iommu_ops);
>>
>> + /*
>> + * The last added SMMU is the first element of arm_smmu_devices.
>> + * It's not necessary to take the lock because only the boot CPU is
>> + * initialized the SMMU devices.
>
> Why is only the last added SMMU of interest? Do we not need to take the
> union and/or intersection of them all?
It's already the case. The function arm_smmu_dt_init is called on every
SMMU. So the last added SMMU is the one we are currently added.
> Perhaps the code which calls iommu_set_feature should gain an else which
> calls iommu_clear_feature, and between them they can ensure that
> platform_features is correctly updated?
iommu_{set,clear}_feature is a generic code and per-domain.
The main issue is if we add device protected by SMMU which doesn't have
coherent walk, we have to browse the page table and clean the cache.
So we have to know at boot time that one of the SMMU doesn't have
coherent walk.
Regards,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
