Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: PATCH, RFC: Generic DMA framework

[Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>]

> From DMA2.txt, NCR89C100.txt, NCR89C105.txt and turbosparc.pdf I
> gather the following:
> - CPU and IOMMU always perform slave accesses
> - Slave accesses use the 28-bit address bus to select the device

I thought device selection was separate from the 28-bit SBus slave address 
space. ie. each device has exclusive ownership of the whole 28-bit address 
space, and it's effectively just multiplexing per-slave busses over a single 
electrical connection.

> - Slave accesses are not translated by IOMMU
> - NCR master devices (Lance, ESP) use an internal DREQ-style signal to
> indicate their need for DMA to their DMA controller
> - Master accesses use the 32-bit SBus data signals for both address and
> data - DMA controller is the master for NCR89C100+NCR89C105 combination -
> Master accesses are translated and controlled by IOMMU
> - Slave devices may or may not support master access cycles (not
> supported in the NCR case)
> - IOMMU can give direct bus access for "intelligent masters" (no devices
> known)
>
> We could model this using two buses: A slave bus between the CPU and
> the devices, and a master bus between devices and IOMMU. The slave bus
> translates the 36-bit CPU/memory bus addresses to 28-bit SBus bus
> addresses. The master bus uses IOMMU to translate 32-bit DVMA
> addresses to 36-bit CPU/memory bus addresses. Slave devices are
> connected to the slave bus and DREQs. Master devices and DMA
> controllers take the DREQs and both buses. Devices register the
> address ranges they serve on each bus.

IIUC devices never register addresses on the master bus. The only thing that 
responds on that bus is the IOMMU.

> On Sun4c (without IOMMU) there would be just one bus for both purposes
> (with the MMU quirk).
>
> For the Sparc64 PCI bus which has an IOMMU, a similar dual bus
> arrangement would be needed. On PC/PPC systems the two buses would be
> again one.

PCI shouldn't need a dual bus setup. You just have one bus for PCI and one bus 
for CPU/memory.

IMHO the whole point of having a generic bus infrastructure is that we can 
define address mapping in terms of [asymmetric] translations from one bus 
address space to another. This isolates teh device from needing to care about 
bridges and IOMMu.

If we're assuming 1:1 or symmetric address space mapping there doesn't seem 
much point modelling separate busses. Instead push everything into the device 
registration and DMA routines.

Paul