From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] iommu/arm-smmu: Don't inadvertently reject multiple SMMUv3s
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 10:29:24 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161026092850.GC2104@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7aff47c3-c794-5291-4b2a-44493f398828@arm.com>
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 05:20:43PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 19/10/16 13:49, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 12:06:20PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> >> We now delay installing our per-bus iommu_ops until we know an SMMU has
> >> successfully probed, as they don't serve much purpose beforehand, and
> >> doing so also avoids fights between multiple IOMMU drivers in a single
> >> kernel. However, the upshot of passing the return value of bus_set_iommu()
> >> back from our probe function is that if there happens to be more than
> >> one SMMUv3 device in a system, the second and subsequent probes will
> >> wind up returning -EBUSY to the driver core and getting torn down again.
> >>
> >> There are essentially 3 cases in which bus_set_iommu() returns nonzero:
> >> 1. The bus already has iommu_ops installed
> >> 2. One of the add_device callbacks from the initial notifier failed
> >> 3. Allocating or installing the notifier itself failed
> >>
> >> The first two are down to devices other than the SMMU in question, so
> >> shouldn't abort an otherwise-successful SMMU probe, whilst the third is
> >> indicative of the kind of catastrophic system failure which isn't going
> >> to get much further anyway. Consequently, there is little harm in
> >> ignoring the return value either way.
> >>
> >> CC: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c | 11 ++++-------
> >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
> >> index 15c01c3cd540..74fbef384deb 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
> >> @@ -2637,16 +2637,13 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_dt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >> of_iommu_set_ops(dev->of_node, &arm_smmu_ops);
> >> #ifdef CONFIG_PCI
> >> pci_request_acs();
> >> - ret = bus_set_iommu(&pci_bus_type, &arm_smmu_ops);
> >> - if (ret)
> >> - return ret;
> >> + bus_set_iommu(&pci_bus_type, &arm_smmu_ops);
> >> #endif
> >> #ifdef CONFIG_ARM_AMBA
> >> - ret = bus_set_iommu(&amba_bustype, &arm_smmu_ops);
> >> - if (ret)
> >> - return ret;
> >> + bus_set_iommu(&amba_bustype, &arm_smmu_ops);
> >> #endif
> >> - return bus_set_iommu(&platform_bus_type, &arm_smmu_ops);
> >> + bus_set_iommu(&platform_bus_type, &arm_smmu_ops);
> >> + return 0;
> >
> > In which case, we should probably add an iommu_present check, like we
> > have for the v2 driver.
>
> As touched upon in the commit message, the first thing bus_set_iommu()
> does is perform that same check and return immediately if any ops are
> already set. Do you really want redundant checks added, or shall I spin
> that cleanup patch removing them from v2 that I proposed to Lorenzo?
A cleanup patch sounds good, to keep the two drivers consistent.
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-10-26 9:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-17 11:06 [PATCH 1/2] iommu/arm-smmu: Don't inadvertently reject multiple SMMUv3s Robin Murphy
2016-10-17 11:06 ` [PATCH 2/2] iommu/arm-smmu: Work around ARM DMA configuration Robin Murphy
2016-10-17 13:21 ` [PATCH 1/2] iommu/arm-smmu: Don't inadvertently reject multiple SMMUv3s Lorenzo Pieralisi
2016-10-17 14:19 ` Robin Murphy
2016-10-17 17:57 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2016-10-17 14:19 ` Sricharan
2016-10-19 12:49 ` Will Deacon
2016-10-21 16:20 ` Robin Murphy
2016-10-26 9:29 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2016-10-25 15:25 ` Hanjun Guo
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=20161026092850.GC2104@arm.com \
--to=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).