[PATCH 5/5 v11] iommu/fsl: Freescale PAMU driver and iommu implementation.
Joerg Roedel
joro at 8bytes.org
Wed Apr 3 03:18:13 EST 2013
Cc'ing Alex Williamson
Alex, can you please review the iommu-group part of this patch?
My comments so far are below:
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 01:24:02AM +0530, Varun Sethi wrote:
> +config FSL_PAMU
> + bool "Freescale IOMMU support"
> + depends on PPC_E500MC
> + select IOMMU_API
> + select GENERIC_ALLOCATOR
> + help
> + Freescale PAMU support.
A bit lame for a help text. Can you elaborate more what PAMU is and when
it should be enabled?
> +int pamu_enable_liodn(int liodn)
> +{
> + struct paace *ppaace;
> +
> + ppaace = pamu_get_ppaace(liodn);
> + if (!ppaace) {
> + pr_err("Invalid primary paace entry\n");
> + return -ENOENT;
> + }
> +
> + if (!get_bf(ppaace->addr_bitfields, PPAACE_AF_WSE)) {
> + pr_err("liodn %d not configured\n", liodn);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + /* Ensure that all other stores to the ppaace complete first */
> + mb();
> +
> + ppaace->addr_bitfields |= PAACE_V_VALID;
> + mb();
Why is it sufficient to set the bit in a variable when enabling liodn
but when disabling it set_bf needs to be called? This looks a bit
assymetric.
> +/* Derive the window size encoding for a particular PAACE entry */
> +static unsigned int map_addrspace_size_to_wse(phys_addr_t addrspace_size)
> +{
> + /* Bug if not a power of 2 */
> + BUG_ON((addrspace_size & (addrspace_size - 1)));
Please use is_power_of_2 here.
> +
> + /* window size is 2^(WSE+1) bytes */
> + return __ffs(addrspace_size >> PAMU_PAGE_SHIFT) + PAMU_PAGE_SHIFT - 1;
The PAMU_PAGE_SHIFT shifting and adding looks redundant.
> + if ((win_size & (win_size - 1)) || win_size < PAMU_PAGE_SIZE) {
> + pr_err("window size too small or not a power of two %llx\n", win_size);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + if (win_addr & (win_size - 1)) {
> + pr_err("window address is not aligned with window size\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
Again, use is_power_of_2 instead of hand-coding.
> + if (~stashid != 0)
> + set_bf(paace->impl_attr, PAACE_IA_CID, stashid);
> +
> + smp_wmb();
> +
> + if (enable)
> + paace->addr_bitfields |= PAACE_V_VALID;
Havn't you written a helper funtion to set this bit?
> +irqreturn_t pamu_av_isr(int irq, void *arg)
> +{
> + struct pamu_isr_data *data = arg;
> + phys_addr_t phys;
> + unsigned int i, j;
> +
> + pr_emerg("fsl-pamu: access violation interrupt\n");
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < data->count; i++) {
> + void __iomem *p = data->pamu_reg_base + i * PAMU_OFFSET;
> + u32 pics = in_be32(p + PAMU_PICS);
> +
> + if (pics & PAMU_ACCESS_VIOLATION_STAT) {
> + pr_emerg("POES1=%08x\n", in_be32(p + PAMU_POES1));
> + pr_emerg("POES2=%08x\n", in_be32(p + PAMU_POES2));
> + pr_emerg("AVS1=%08x\n", in_be32(p + PAMU_AVS1));
> + pr_emerg("AVS2=%08x\n", in_be32(p + PAMU_AVS2));
> + pr_emerg("AVA=%016llx\n", make64(in_be32(p + PAMU_AVAH),
> + in_be32(p + PAMU_AVAL)));
> + pr_emerg("UDAD=%08x\n", in_be32(p + PAMU_UDAD));
> + pr_emerg("POEA=%016llx\n", make64(in_be32(p + PAMU_POEAH),
> + in_be32(p + PAMU_POEAL)));
> +
> + phys = make64(in_be32(p + PAMU_POEAH),
> + in_be32(p + PAMU_POEAL));
> +
> + /* Assume that POEA points to a PAACE */
> + if (phys) {
> + u32 *paace = phys_to_virt(phys);
> +
> + /* Only the first four words are relevant */
> + for (j = 0; j < 4; j++)
> + pr_emerg("PAACE[%u]=%08x\n", j, in_be32(paace + j));
> + }
> + }
> + }
> +
> + panic("\n");
A kernel panic seems like an over-reaction to an access violation.
Besides the device that caused the violation the system should still
work, no?
> +#define make64(high, low) (((u64)(high) << 32) | (low))
You redefined this make64 here.
> +static int map_subwins(int liodn, struct fsl_dma_domain *dma_domain)
> +{
> + struct dma_window *sub_win_ptr =
> + &dma_domain->win_arr[0];
> + int i, ret;
> + unsigned long rpn;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < dma_domain->win_cnt; i++) {
> + if (sub_win_ptr[i].valid) {
> + rpn = sub_win_ptr[i].paddr >>
> + PAMU_PAGE_SHIFT;
> + spin_lock(&iommu_lock);
IOMMU code might run in interrupt context, so please use
spin_lock_irqsave for the iommu_lock.
> +static void detach_device(struct device *dev, struct fsl_dma_domain *dma_domain)
> +{
> + struct device_domain_info *info;
> + struct list_head *entry, *tmp;
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&dma_domain->domain_lock, flags);
> + /* Remove the device from the domain device list */
> + if (!list_empty(&dma_domain->devices)) {
> + list_for_each_safe(entry, tmp, &dma_domain->devices) {
> + info = list_entry(entry, struct device_domain_info, link);
> + if (!dev || (info->dev == dev))
> + remove_device_ref(info, dma_domain->win_cnt);
> + }
> + }
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dma_domain->domain_lock, flags);
list_empty check is not needed. You can also use
list_for_each_entry_safe.
> +static void attach_device(struct fsl_dma_domain *dma_domain, int liodn, struct device *dev)
> +{
> + struct device_domain_info *info, *old_domain_info;
> +
> + spin_lock(&device_domain_lock);
> + /*
> + * Check here if the device is already attached to domain or not.
> + * If the device is already attached to a domain detach it.
> + */
> + old_domain_info = find_domain(dev);
> + if (old_domain_info && old_domain_info->domain != dma_domain) {
> + spin_unlock(&device_domain_lock);
> + detach_device(dev, old_domain_info->domain);
> + spin_lock(&device_domain_lock);
> + }
> +
> + info = kmem_cache_zalloc(iommu_devinfo_cache, GFP_KERNEL);
> +
> + info->dev = dev;
> + info->liodn = liodn;
> + info->domain = dma_domain;
> +
> + list_add(&info->link, &dma_domain->devices);
> + /*
> + * In case of devices with multiple LIODNs just store
> + * the info for the first LIODN as all
> + * LIODNs share the same domain
> + */
> + if (!old_domain_info)
> + dev->archdata.iommu_domain = info;
> + spin_unlock(&device_domain_lock);
Don't you have to tell the hardware that a device was added to a domain?
I don't see that, what I am missing?
> +static void swap_pci_ref(struct pci_dev **from, struct pci_dev *to)
> +{
> + pci_dev_put(*from);
> + *from = to;
> +}
Hmm, looks like this function is re-implemented in a few IOMMU drivers.
Want to use the chance to consolidate these implementations?
Joerg
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list