Hi Rahul,
On 10/12/2020 16:57, Rahul Singh wrote:
struct arm_smmu_strtab_cfg {
@@ -613,8 +847,13 @@ struct arm_smmu_device {
u64 padding;
};
- /* IOMMU core code handle */
- struct iommu_device iommu;
+ /* Need to keep a list of SMMU devices */
+ struct list_head devices;
+
+ /* Tasklets for handling evts/faults and pci page request IRQs*/
+ struct tasklet evtq_irq_tasklet;
+ struct tasklet priq_irq_tasklet;
+ struct tasklet combined_irq_tasklet;
};
/* SMMU private data for each master */
@@ -638,7 +877,6 @@ enum arm_smmu_domain_stage {
struct arm_smmu_domain {
struct arm_smmu_device *smmu;
- struct mutex init_mutex; /* Protects smmu pointer */
Hmmm... Your commit message says the mutex would be replaced by a
spinlock. However, you are dropping the lock. What I did miss?
[...]
@@ -1578,6 +1841,17 @@ static int arm_smmu_domain_finalise_s2(struct
arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain,
struct arm_smmu_device *smmu = smmu_domain->smmu;
struct arm_smmu_s2_cfg *cfg = &smmu_domain->s2_cfg;
typeof(&arm_lpae_s2_cfg.vtcr) vtcr = &arm_lpae_s2_cfg.vtcr;
+ uint64_t reg = READ_SYSREG64(VTCR_EL2);
Please don't use VTCR_EL2 here. You should be able to infer the
parameter from the p2m_ipa_bits.
Also, I still don't see code that will restrict the IPA bits because on
the support for the SMMU.
+
+ vtcr->tsz = FIELD_GET(STRTAB_STE_2_VTCR_S2T0SZ, reg);
+ vtcr->sl = FIELD_GET(STRTAB_STE_2_VTCR_S2SL0, reg);
+ vtcr->irgn = FIELD_GET(STRTAB_STE_2_VTCR_S2IR0, reg);
+ vtcr->orgn = FIELD_GET(STRTAB_STE_2_VTCR_S2OR0, reg);
+ vtcr->sh = FIELD_GET(STRTAB_STE_2_VTCR_S2SH0, reg);
+ vtcr->tg = FIELD_GET(STRTAB_STE_2_VTCR_S2TG, reg);
+ vtcr->ps = FIELD_GET(STRTAB_STE_2_VTCR_S2PS, reg);
+
+ arm_lpae_s2_cfg.vttbr = page_to_maddr(cfg->domain->arch.p2m.root);
vmid = arm_smmu_bitmap_alloc(smmu->vmid_map, smmu->vmid_bits);
if (vmid < 0)
@@ -1592,6 +1866,11 @@ static int arm_smmu_domain_finalise_s2(struct
arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain,
FIELD_PREP(STRTAB_STE_2_VTCR_S2SH0, vtcr->sh) |
FIELD_PREP(STRTAB_STE_2_VTCR_S2TG, vtcr->tg) |
FIELD_PREP(STRTAB_STE_2_VTCR_S2PS, vtcr->ps);
+
+ printk(XENLOG_DEBUG
+ "SMMUv3: d%u: vmid 0x%x vtcr 0x%"PRIpaddr" p2maddr
0x%"PRIpaddr"\n",
+ cfg->domain->domain_id, cfg->vmid, cfg->vtcr, cfg->vttbr);
+
return 0;
}
[...]
@@ -1923,8 +2239,8 @@ static int arm_smmu_init_one_queue(struct arm_smmu_device
*smmu,
return -ENOMEM;
}
- if (!WARN_ON(q->base_dma & (qsz - 1))) { > - dev_info(smmu->dev, "allocated %u entries for %s\n",
+ if (unlikely(q->base_dma & (qsz - 1))) {
+ dev_warn(smmu->dev, "allocated %u entries for %s\n",
dev_warn() is not the same as WARN_ON(). But really, the first step is
for you to try to change behavior of WARN_ON() in Xen.
If this doesn't go through then we can discuss about approach to
mitigate it.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
