From: Jason Gunthorpe via iommu <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Stuart Yoder <stuyoder@gmail.com>,
rafael@kernel.org, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
Diana Craciun <diana.craciun@oss.nxp.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@nvidia.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Li Yang <leoyang.li@nxp.com>,
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
Jacob jun Pan <jacob.jun.pan@intel.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/17] driver core: platform: Add driver dma ownership management
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2021 19:15:09 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211128231509.GA966332@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YaM5Zv1RrdidycKe@kroah.com>
On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 09:10:14AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 10:50:38AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
> > Multiple platform devices may be placed in the same IOMMU group because
> > they cannot be isolated from each other. These devices must either be
> > entirely under kernel control or userspace control, never a mixture. This
> > checks and sets DMA ownership during driver binding, and release the
> > ownership during driver unbinding.
> >
> > Driver may set a new flag (suppress_auto_claim_dma_owner) to disable auto
> > claiming DMA_OWNER_DMA_API ownership in the binding process. For instance,
> > the userspace framework drivers (vfio etc.) which need to manually claim
> > DMA_OWNER_PRIVATE_DOMAIN_USER when assigning a device to userspace.
>
> Why would any vfio driver be a platform driver?
Why not? VFIO implements drivers for most physical device types
these days. Why wouldn't platform be included?
> That should never be the case as they obviously are not platform
> drivers, they are virtual ones.
Huh?
> > diff --git a/include/linux/platform_device.h b/include/linux/platform_device.h
> > index 7c96f169d274..779bcf2a851c 100644
> > +++ b/include/linux/platform_device.h
> > @@ -210,6 +210,7 @@ struct platform_driver {
> > struct device_driver driver;
> > const struct platform_device_id *id_table;
> > bool prevent_deferred_probe;
> > + bool suppress_auto_claim_dma_owner;
>
> What platform driver needs this change?
It is in patch 12:
--- a/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform.c
+++ b/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform.c
@@ -76,6 +76,7 @@ static struct platform_driver vfio_platform_driver = {
.driver = {
.name = "vfio-platform",
},
+ .suppress_auto_claim_dma_owner = true,
};
Which is how VFIO provides support to DPDK for some Ethernet
controllers embedded in a few ARM SOCs.
It is also used in patch 17 in five tegra platform_drivers to make
their sharing of an iommu group between possibly related
platform_driver's safer.
> > USE_PLATFORM_PM_SLEEP_OPS
> > @@ -1478,7 +1505,8 @@ struct bus_type platform_bus_type = {
> > .probe = platform_probe,
> > .remove = platform_remove,
> > .shutdown = platform_shutdown,
> > - .dma_configure = platform_dma_configure,
> > + .dma_configure = _platform_dma_configure,
>
> What happened to the original platform_dma_configure() function?
It is still called. The issue here is that platform_dma_configure has
nothing to do with platform and is being re-used by AMBA.
Probably the resolution to both remarks is to rename
platform_dma_configure to something sensible (firwmare dma configure
maybe?) and use it in all places that do the of & acpi stuff -
pci/amba/platform at least.
Jason
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
rafael@kernel.org, Diana Craciun <diana.craciun@oss.nxp.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>, Liu Yi L <yi.l.liu@intel.com>,
Jacob jun Pan <jacob.jun.pan@intel.com>,
Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@nvidia.com>,
Stuart Yoder <stuyoder@gmail.com>,
Laurentiu Tudor <laurentiu.tudor@nxp.com>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>,
Li Yang <leoyang.li@nxp.com>,
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/17] driver core: platform: Add driver dma ownership management
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2021 19:15:09 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211128231509.GA966332@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YaM5Zv1RrdidycKe@kroah.com>
On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 09:10:14AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 10:50:38AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
> > Multiple platform devices may be placed in the same IOMMU group because
> > they cannot be isolated from each other. These devices must either be
> > entirely under kernel control or userspace control, never a mixture. This
> > checks and sets DMA ownership during driver binding, and release the
> > ownership during driver unbinding.
> >
> > Driver may set a new flag (suppress_auto_claim_dma_owner) to disable auto
> > claiming DMA_OWNER_DMA_API ownership in the binding process. For instance,
> > the userspace framework drivers (vfio etc.) which need to manually claim
> > DMA_OWNER_PRIVATE_DOMAIN_USER when assigning a device to userspace.
>
> Why would any vfio driver be a platform driver?
Why not? VFIO implements drivers for most physical device types
these days. Why wouldn't platform be included?
> That should never be the case as they obviously are not platform
> drivers, they are virtual ones.
Huh?
> > diff --git a/include/linux/platform_device.h b/include/linux/platform_device.h
> > index 7c96f169d274..779bcf2a851c 100644
> > +++ b/include/linux/platform_device.h
> > @@ -210,6 +210,7 @@ struct platform_driver {
> > struct device_driver driver;
> > const struct platform_device_id *id_table;
> > bool prevent_deferred_probe;
> > + bool suppress_auto_claim_dma_owner;
>
> What platform driver needs this change?
It is in patch 12:
--- a/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform.c
+++ b/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform.c
@@ -76,6 +76,7 @@ static struct platform_driver vfio_platform_driver = {
.driver = {
.name = "vfio-platform",
},
+ .suppress_auto_claim_dma_owner = true,
};
Which is how VFIO provides support to DPDK for some Ethernet
controllers embedded in a few ARM SOCs.
It is also used in patch 17 in five tegra platform_drivers to make
their sharing of an iommu group between possibly related
platform_driver's safer.
> > USE_PLATFORM_PM_SLEEP_OPS
> > @@ -1478,7 +1505,8 @@ struct bus_type platform_bus_type = {
> > .probe = platform_probe,
> > .remove = platform_remove,
> > .shutdown = platform_shutdown,
> > - .dma_configure = platform_dma_configure,
> > + .dma_configure = _platform_dma_configure,
>
> What happened to the original platform_dma_configure() function?
It is still called. The issue here is that platform_dma_configure has
nothing to do with platform and is being re-used by AMBA.
Probably the resolution to both remarks is to rename
platform_dma_configure to something sensible (firwmare dma configure
maybe?) and use it in all places that do the of & acpi stuff -
pci/amba/platform at least.
Jason
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-11-28 23:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-28 2:50 [PATCH v2 00/17] Fix BUG_ON in vfio_iommu_group_notifier() Lu Baolu
2021-11-28 2:50 ` Lu Baolu
2021-11-28 2:50 ` [PATCH v2 01/17] iommu: Add device dma ownership set/release interfaces Lu Baolu
2021-11-28 2:50 ` Lu Baolu
2021-11-28 2:50 ` [PATCH v2 02/17] driver core: Add dma_unconfigure callback in bus_type Lu Baolu
2021-11-28 2:50 ` Lu Baolu
2021-11-28 8:02 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-11-28 8:02 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-11-29 4:03 ` Lu Baolu
2021-11-29 4:03 ` Lu Baolu
2021-11-28 2:50 ` [PATCH v2 03/17] PCI: Add driver dma ownership management Lu Baolu
2021-11-28 2:50 ` Lu Baolu
2021-11-28 2:50 ` [PATCH v2 04/17] driver core: platform: " Lu Baolu
2021-11-28 2:50 ` Lu Baolu
2021-11-28 8:10 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-11-28 8:10 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-11-28 23:15 ` Jason Gunthorpe via iommu [this message]
2021-11-28 23:15 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-11-29 10:34 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-11-29 10:34 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-11-29 12:59 ` Jason Gunthorpe via iommu
2021-11-29 12:59 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-11-28 2:50 ` [PATCH v2 05/17] amba: " Lu Baolu
2021-11-28 2:50 ` Lu Baolu
2021-11-28 2:50 ` [PATCH v2 06/17] bus: fsl-mc: " Lu Baolu
2021-11-28 2:50 ` Lu Baolu
2021-11-28 2:50 ` [PATCH v2 07/17] PCI: pci_stub: Suppress kernel DMA ownership auto-claiming Lu Baolu
2021-11-28 2:50 ` Lu Baolu
2021-11-28 2:50 ` [PATCH v2 08/17] PCI: portdrv: " Lu Baolu
2021-11-28 2:50 ` Lu Baolu
2021-11-28 2:50 ` [PATCH v2 09/17] iommu: Add security context management for assigned devices Lu Baolu
2021-11-28 2:50 ` Lu Baolu
2021-11-28 2:50 ` [PATCH v2 10/17] iommu: Expose group variants of dma ownership interfaces Lu Baolu
2021-11-28 2:50 ` Lu Baolu
2021-11-28 2:50 ` [PATCH v2 11/17] iommu: Add iommu_at[de]tach_device_shared() for multi-device groups Lu Baolu
2021-11-28 2:50 ` Lu Baolu
2021-11-28 2:50 ` [PATCH v2 12/17] vfio: Set DMA USER ownership for VFIO devices Lu Baolu
2021-11-28 2:50 ` Lu Baolu
2021-11-28 2:50 ` [PATCH v2 13/17] vfio: Remove use of vfio_group_viable() Lu Baolu
2021-11-28 2:50 ` Lu Baolu
2021-11-28 2:50 ` [PATCH v2 14/17] vfio: Delete the unbound_list Lu Baolu
2021-11-28 2:50 ` Lu Baolu
2021-11-28 2:50 ` [PATCH v2 15/17] vfio: Remove iommu group notifier Lu Baolu
2021-11-28 2:50 ` Lu Baolu
2021-11-28 2:50 ` [PATCH v2 16/17] iommu: Remove iommu group changes notifier Lu Baolu
2021-11-28 2:50 ` Lu Baolu
2021-11-28 2:50 ` [PATCH v2 17/17] drm/tegra: Use the iommu dma_owner mechanism Lu Baolu
2021-11-28 2:50 ` Lu Baolu
2021-11-28 8:10 ` [PATCH v2 00/17] Fix BUG_ON in vfio_iommu_group_notifier() Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-11-28 8:10 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-11-29 3:59 ` Lu Baolu
2021-11-29 3:59 ` Lu Baolu
2021-12-06 2:07 ` Lu Baolu
2021-12-06 2:07 ` Lu Baolu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20211128231509.GA966332@nvidia.com \
--to=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=airlied@linux.ie \
--cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
--cc=ashok.raj@intel.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=daniel@ffwll.ch \
--cc=diana.craciun@oss.nxp.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jacob.jun.pan@intel.com \
--cc=jgg@nvidia.com \
--cc=jonathanh@nvidia.com \
--cc=kch@nvidia.com \
--cc=kevin.tian@intel.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=leoyang.li@nxp.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=stuyoder@gmail.com \
--cc=thierry.reding@gmail.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.