From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A3B6CA9EAF for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 10:51:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 012082166E for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 10:51:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="R1+SnBxL"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="shKeDMSh" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 012082166E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=8BrU1i7kwZgygAJGYfskVnKSJZe+6zlWBlTsG5fydyY=; b=R1+SnBxLkiIOdc OpCApH/CvKNG7Faga2Je9RljrehRrD39Bk6LI6FL2tmvWJlTgwiN63nPYVhlyfC6V3TOAFbtazsfQ Arw8mCqXqRRi4SrdlRw0VUm9uPc0l2wF9Hp+NJuRagukJHOteM7tXVABYRJOpMDEmVQ3uv3uG8ED1 IN+85xbNWGO+fZpiPa/NU9yyf10cVBA8u9HfN5N7t82yHIAANwkqo9j8ssOa44NUEHfOs1liTs60V od8rpWgLIkyA46Y9DG0akoT3QjPaFgInOCYBq4t1CPfPzxuxPDPpUEMKyZkEDaIKiQviFUB4BLsd4 P9024li1GxYjtSGGbLQg==; Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1iNai8-0008Up-6c; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 10:51:20 +0000 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1iNai5-0008UV-3y for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 10:51:18 +0000 Received: from willie-the-truck (236.31.169.217.in-addr.arpa [217.169.31.236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9E38A2166E; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 10:51:15 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1571914276; bh=Kj6+AnQpjJYV+7HTsJMyS1bxomC86ZV2OoCT41dm8TU=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=shKeDMShncmFYkmfBFG4V1v0e26kvizBggfORXJAJqLm+B8OItrnGod5Y7c7Do34z Kk4CpqCieoARXZ0aJwD2Bg1xoaDhSZPkCL6D7C2fTOAaCvHLGsH0Y/UeFt7nJjT5fu Z1EHBgIvpIn9sB+nXjZgGtCpq0qhelqMJMp3jXgU= Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 11:51:12 +0100 From: Will Deacon To: Robin Murphy , joro@8bytes.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, robdclark@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] iommu/io-pgtable-arm: Rationalise TCR handling Message-ID: <20191024105111.GB1242@willie-the-truck> References: <78df4f8e2510e88f3ded59eb385f79b4442ed4f2.1566238530.git.robin.murphy@arm.com> <20190820103115.o7neehdethf7sbqi@willie-the-truck> <48ca6945-de73-116a-3230-84862ca9e60b@arm.com> <20190820160700.6ircxomwuo5bksqz@willie-the-truck> <8cc47f43-ad74-b4e2-e977-6c78780abc91@arm.com> <20190821121120.34wqo7vj56pqk57c@willie-the-truck> <20191003173352.GA13386@jcrouse1-lnx.qualcomm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191003173352.GA13386@jcrouse1-lnx.qualcomm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20191024_035117_203145_7DAF030F X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 26.14 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 11:33:52AM -0600, Jordan Crouse wrote: > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 01:56:20PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote: > > On 21/08/2019 13:11, Will Deacon wrote: > > >On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 07:41:52PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote: > > >>On 20/08/2019 17:07, Will Deacon wrote: > > >>>On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 04:25:56PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote: > > >>>>On 20/08/2019 11:31, Will Deacon wrote: > > >>>>>On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 07:19:30PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote: > > >>>>>>Although it's conceptually nice for the io_pgtable_cfg to provide a > > >>>>>>standard VMSA TCR value, the reality is that no VMSA-compliant IOMMU > > >>>>>>looks exactly like an Arm CPU, and they all have various other TCR > > >>>>>>controls which io-pgtable can't be expected to understand. Thus since > > >>>>>>there is an expectation that drivers will have to add to the given TCR > > >>>>>>value anyway, let's strip it down to just the essentials that are > > >>>>>>directly relevant to io-pgatble's inner workings - namely the address > > >>>>>>sizes, walk attributes, and where appropriate, format selection. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy > > >>>>>>--- > > >>>>>> drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c | 7 +------ > > >>>>>> drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c | 1 + > > >>>>>> drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.h | 2 ++ > > >>>>>> drivers/iommu/io-pgtable-arm-v7s.c | 6 ++---- > > >>>>>> drivers/iommu/io-pgtable-arm.c | 4 ---- > > >>>>>> drivers/iommu/qcom_iommu.c | 2 +- > > >>>>>> 6 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > >>>>> > > >>>>>Hmm, so I'm a bit nervous about this one since I think we really should > > >>>>>be providing a TCR with EPD1 set if we're only giving you TTBR0. Relying > > >>>>>on the driver to do this worries me. See my comments on the next patch. > > >>>> > > >>>>The whole idea is that we already know we can't provide a *complete* TCR > > >>>>value (not least because anything above bit 31 is the wild west), thus > > >>>>there's really no point in io-pgtable trying to provide anything other than > > >>>>the parts it definitely controls. It makes sense to provide this partial TCR > > >>>>value "as if" for TTBR0, since that's the most common case, but ultimately > > >>>>io-pgatble doesn't know (or need to) which TTBR the caller intends to > > >>>>actually use for this table. Even if the caller *is* allocating it for > > >>>>TTBR0, io-pgtable doesn't know that they haven't got something live in TTBR1 > > >>>>already, so it still wouldn't be in a position to make the EPD1 call either > > >>>>way. > > >>> > > >>>Ok, but the driver can happily rewrite/ignore what it gets back. I suppose > > >>>an alternative would be scrapped the 'u64 tcr' and instead having a bunch > > >>>of named bitfields for the stuff we're actually providing, although I'd > > >>>still like EPDx to be in there. > > >> > > >>I like the bitfield idea; it would certainly emphasise the "you have to do > > >>something more with this" angle that I'm pushing towards here, but still > > >>leave things framed in TCR terms without having to go to some more general > > >>abstraction. It really doesn't play into your EPD argument though - such a > > >>config would be providing TxSZ/TGx/IRGNx/ORGNx/SHx, but EPDy, for y = !x. > > >>For a driver to understand that and do the right thing with it is even more > > >>involved than for the driver to just set EPD1 by itself anyway. > > > > > >Having considered the bitfield idea some more, I'm less attached to EPDx > > >because we simply wouldn't be making a statement about them, rather than a > > >(dangerous) zero value and expecting it to be ignored. So I think we're in > > >agreement on that. > > > > Cool, I'll give bitfields a go for v2. > > > > >The only part I'm still stuck to is that I think io-pgtable should know > > >whether it's targetting TTBR0 or TTBR1 so that it can sanitise input > > >addresses correctly. Doing this in the driver code is possible, but I'd > > >rather not start from that position, particularly as it would require things > > >like sign-extension in the TLBI callbacks. > > Bumping this as is our tradition in the -rc1 time frame before we get all > distracted with other stuff. It sounds like the last agreement was for a > TTBR1 hint for the EDP and the sign extension in the functions. If somebody respins this using bitfields and an explicit TTBR1 quirk then I'll merge it. Will _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel