[PATCH v2 13/14] powerpc/pseries/iommu: Make use of DDW for indirect mapping

[Leonardo Bras]

On Tue, 2021-04-13 at 17:41 +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> 
> On 13/04/2021 17:33, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> > On Tue, 2021-04-13 at 17:18 +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> > > 
> > > On 13/04/2021 15:49, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> > > > Thanks for the feedback!
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue, 2020-09-29 at 13:56 +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> > > > > > -static bool find_existing_ddw(struct device_node *pdn, u64 *dma_addr)
> > > > > > +static phys_addr_t ddw_memory_hotplug_max(void)
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Please, forward declaration or a separate patch; this creates
> > > > > unnecessary noise to the actual change.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Sure, done!
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > +		_iommu_table_setparms(tbl, pci->phb->bus->number, create.liobn, win_addr,
> > > > > > +				      1UL << len, page_shift, 0, &iommu_table_lpar_multi_ops);
> > > > > > +		iommu_init_table(tbl, pci->phb->node, 0, 0);
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > It is 0,0 only if win_addr>0 which is not the QEMU case.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Oh, ok.
> > > > I previously though it was ok to use 0,0 here as any other usage in
> > > > this file was also 0,0.
> > > > 
> > > > What should I use to get the correct parameters? Use the previous tbl
> > > > it_reserved_start and tbl->it_reserved_end is enough?
> > > 
> > > depends on whether you carry reserved start/end even if they are outside
> > > of the dma window.
> > > 
> > 
> > Oh, that makes sense.
> > On a previous patch (5/14 IIRC), I changed the behavior to only store
> > the valid range on tbl, but now I understand why it's important to
> > store the raw value.
> > 
> > Ok, I will change it back so the reserved range stays in tbl even if it
> > does not intersect with the DMA window. This way I can reuse the values
> > in case of indirect mapping with DDW.
> > 
> > Is that ok? Are the reserved values are supposed to stay the same after
> > changing from Default DMA window to DDW?
> 
> I added them to know what bits in it_map to ignore when checking if 
> there is any active user of the table. If you have non zero reserved 
> start/end but they do not affect it_map, then it is rather weird way to 
> carry reserved start/end from DDW to no-DDW.
> 

Ok, agreed.

>  May be do not set these at 
> all for DDW with window start at 1<<59 and when going back to no-DDW (or 
> if DDW starts at 0) - just set them from MMIO32, just as they are 
> initialized in the first place.
> 

If I get it correctly from pci_of_scan.c, MMIO32 = {0, 32MB}, is that
correct?

So, if DDW starts at any value in this range (most probably at zero),
we should remove the rest, is that correct?

Could it always use iommu_init_table(..., 0, 32MB) here, so it always
reserve any part of the DMA window that's in this range? Ot there may
be other reserved values range?

> and when going back to no-DDW 

After iommu_init_table() there should be no failure, so it looks like
there is no 'going back to no-DDW'. Am I missing something?

Thanks for helping!

Best regards,
Leonardo Bras