Re: [PATCH 0/2] Introduce PCI_FIXUP_IOMMU

Zhangfei Gao
2020-06-11T02:55:09Z

On 2020/6/10 上午12:49, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 11:15:06AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 6:02 AM Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@linaro.org> wrote:
>>> On 2020/6/9 上午12:41, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 10:54:15AM +0800, Zhangfei Gao wrote:
>>>>> On 2020/6/6 上午7:19, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
>>>>>>> @@ -2418,6 +2418,10 @@ int iommu_fwspec_init(struct device *dev, struct
>>>>>>> fwnode_handle *iommu_fwnode,
>>>>>>> fwspec->iommu_fwnode = iommu_fwnode;
>>>>>>> fwspec->ops = ops;
>>>>>>> dev_iommu_fwspec_set(dev, fwspec);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + if (dev_is_pci(dev))
>>>>>>> + pci_fixup_device(pci_fixup_final, to_pci_dev(dev));
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then pci_fixup_final will be called twice, the first in pci_bus_add_device.
>>>>>>> Here in iommu_fwspec_init is the second time, specifically for iommu_fwspec.
>>>>>>> Will send this when 5.8-rc1 is open.
>>>>>> Wait, this whole fixup approach seems wrong to me. No matter how you
>>>>>> do the fixup, it's still a fixup, which means it requires ongoing
>>>>>> maintenance. Surely we don't want to have to add the Vendor/Device ID
>>>>>> for every new AMBA device that comes along, do we?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Here the fake pci device has standard PCI cfg space, but physical
>>>>> implementation is base on AMBA
>>>>> They can provide pasid feature.
>>>>> However,
>>>>> 1, does not support tlp since they are not real pci devices.
>>>>> 2. does not support pri, instead support stall (provided by smmu)
>>>>> And stall is not a pci feature, so it is not described in struct pci_dev,
>>>>> but in struct iommu_fwspec.
>>>>> So we use this fixup to tell pci system that the devices can support stall,
>>>>> and hereby support pasid.
>>>> This did not answer my question. Are you proposing that we update a
>>>> quirk every time a new AMBA device is released? I don't think that
>>>> would be a good model.
>>> Yes, you are right, but we do not have any better idea yet.
>>> Currently we have three fake pci devices, which support stall and pasid.
>>> We have to let pci system know the device can support pasid, because of
>>> stall feature, though not support pri.
>>> Do you have any other ideas?
>> It sounds like the best way would be to allocate a PCI capability for it, so
>> detection can be done through config space, at least in future devices,
>> or possibly after a firmware update if the config space in your system
>> is controlled by firmware somewhere. Once there is a proper mechanism
>> to do this, using fixups to detect the early devices that don't use that
>> should be uncontroversial. I have no idea what the process or timeline
>> is to add new capabilities into the PCIe specification, or if this one
>> would be acceptable to the PCI SIG at all.
> That sounds like a possibility. The spec already defines a
> Vendor-Specific Extended Capability (PCIe r5.0, sec 7.9.5) that might
> be a candidate.
Will investigate this, thanks Bjorn
>
>> If detection cannot be done through PCI config space, the next best
>> alternative is to pass auxiliary data through firmware. On DT based
>> machines, you can list non-hotpluggable PCIe devices and add custom
>> properties that could be read during device enumeration. I assume
>> ACPI has something similar, but I have not done that.
Yes, thanks Arnd
> ACPI has _DSM (ACPI v6.3, sec 9.1.1), which might be a candidate. I
> like this better than a PCI capability because the property you need
> to expose is not a PCI property.
_DSM may not workable, since it is working in runtime.
We need stall information in init stage, neither too early (after
allocation of iommu_fwspec)
nor too late (before arm_smmu_add_device ).

By the way,
It would be a long time if we need modify either pcie spec or acpi spec.
Can we use pci_fixup_device in iommu_fwspec_init first, it is relatively
simple
and meet the requirement of platform device using pasid, and they are
already in product.

Thanks