Re: [RFC PATCH 08/15] iommu/riscv: Add IRQ domain for interrupt remapping

[Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>]

On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 02:43:36PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 05:18:53PM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > @@ -1276,10 +1279,30 @@ static int riscv_iommu_attach_paging_domain(struct iommu_domain *iommu_domain,
> >  	struct riscv_iommu_device *iommu = dev_to_iommu(dev);
> >  	struct riscv_iommu_info *info = dev_iommu_priv_get(dev);
> >  	struct riscv_iommu_dc dc = {0};
> > +	int ret;
> >  
> >  	if (!riscv_iommu_pt_supported(iommu, domain->pgd_mode))
> >  		return -ENODEV;
> >  
> > +	if (riscv_iommu_bond_link(domain, dev))
> > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > +	if (iommu_domain->type == IOMMU_DOMAIN_UNMANAGED) {
> 
> Drivers should not be making tests like this.
> 
> > +		domain->gscid = ida_alloc_range(&riscv_iommu_gscids, 1,
> > +						RISCV_IOMMU_MAX_GSCID, GFP_KERNEL);
> > +		if (domain->gscid < 0) {
> > +			riscv_iommu_bond_unlink(domain, dev);
> > +			return -ENOMEM;
> > +		}
> > +
> > +		ret = riscv_iommu_irq_domain_create(domain, dev);
> > +		if (ret) {
> > +			riscv_iommu_bond_unlink(domain, dev);
> > +			ida_free(&riscv_iommu_gscids, domain->gscid);
> > +			return ret;
> > +		}
> > +	}
> 
> What are you trying to do? Make something behave different for VFIO?
> That isn't OK, we are trying to remove all the hacky VFIO special
> cases in drivers.
> 
> What is the HW issue here? It is very very strange (and probably not
> going to work right) that the irq domains change when domain
> attachment changes.
> 
> The IRQ setup should really be fixed before any device drivers probe
> onto the device.

I can't disagree with the statement that this looks hacky, but considering
a VFIO domain needs to use the g-stage for its single-stage translation
and a paging domain for the host would use s-stage, then it seems we need
to identify the VFIO domains for their special treatment. Is there an
example of converting VFIO special casing in other drivers to something
cleaner that you can point me at?

The IRQ domain will only be useful for device assignment, as that's when
an MSI translation will be needed. I can't think of any problems that
could arise from only creating the IRQ domain when probing assigned
devices, but I could certainly be missing something. Do you have some
potential problems in mind?

Thanks,
drew