Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] iommu/arm-smmu: Add support for driver IOMMU fault handlers

Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] iommu/arm-smmu: Add support for driver IOMMU fault handlers

[Will Deacon]

On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:15:58PM -0700, Jordan Crouse wrote:
> Call report_iommu_fault() to allow upper-level drivers to register their
> own fault handlers.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jordan Crouse <jcrouse@codeaurora.org>
> ---
> 
>  drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c
> index 0f28a8614da3..7fd18bbda8f5 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c
> @@ -427,6 +427,7 @@ static irqreturn_t arm_smmu_context_fault(int irq, void *dev)
>  	struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain = to_smmu_domain(domain);
>  	struct arm_smmu_device *smmu = smmu_domain->smmu;
>  	int idx = smmu_domain->cfg.cbndx;
> +	int ret;
>  
>  	fsr = arm_smmu_cb_read(smmu, idx, ARM_SMMU_CB_FSR);
>  	if (!(fsr & ARM_SMMU_FSR_FAULT))
> @@ -436,11 +437,20 @@ static irqreturn_t arm_smmu_context_fault(int irq, void *dev)
>  	iova = arm_smmu_cb_readq(smmu, idx, ARM_SMMU_CB_FAR);
>  	cbfrsynra = arm_smmu_gr1_read(smmu, ARM_SMMU_GR1_CBFRSYNRA(idx));
>  
> -	dev_err_ratelimited(smmu->dev,
> -	"Unhandled context fault: fsr=0x%x, iova=0x%08lx, fsynr=0x%x, cbfrsynra=0x%x, cb=%d\n",
> +	ret = report_iommu_fault(domain, dev, iova,
> +		fsynr & ARM_SMMU_FSYNR0_WNR ? IOMMU_FAULT_WRITE : IOMMU_FAULT_READ);
> +
> +	if (ret == -ENOSYS)
> +		dev_err_ratelimited(smmu->dev,
> +		"Unhandled context fault: fsr=0x%x, iova=0x%08lx, fsynr=0x%x, cbfrsynra=0x%x, cb=%d\n",
>  			    fsr, iova, fsynr, cbfrsynra, idx);
>  
> -	arm_smmu_cb_write(smmu, idx, ARM_SMMU_CB_FSR, fsr);
> +	/*
> +	 * If the iommu fault returns an error (except -ENOSYS) then assume that
> +	 * they will handle resuming on their own
> +	 */
> +	if (!ret || ret == -ENOSYS)
> +		arm_smmu_cb_write(smmu, idx, ARM_SMMU_CB_FSR, fsr);

Hmm, I don't grok this part. If the fault handler returned an error and
we don't clear the FSR, won't we just re-take the irq immediately? I think
it would be better to do this unconditionally, and print the "Unhandled
context fault" message for any non-zero value of ret.

Will

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] iommu/arm-smmu: Add support for driver IOMMU fault handlers

[Robin Murphy]

On 2021-01-22 12:41, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:15:58PM -0700, Jordan Crouse wrote:
>> Call report_iommu_fault() to allow upper-level drivers to register their
>> own fault handlers.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jordan Crouse <jcrouse@codeaurora.org>
>> ---
>>
>>   drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
>>   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c
>> index 0f28a8614da3..7fd18bbda8f5 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c
>> @@ -427,6 +427,7 @@ static irqreturn_t arm_smmu_context_fault(int irq, void *dev)
>>   	struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain = to_smmu_domain(domain);
>>   	struct arm_smmu_device *smmu = smmu_domain->smmu;
>>   	int idx = smmu_domain->cfg.cbndx;
>> +	int ret;
>>   
>>   	fsr = arm_smmu_cb_read(smmu, idx, ARM_SMMU_CB_FSR);
>>   	if (!(fsr & ARM_SMMU_FSR_FAULT))
>> @@ -436,11 +437,20 @@ static irqreturn_t arm_smmu_context_fault(int irq, void *dev)
>>   	iova = arm_smmu_cb_readq(smmu, idx, ARM_SMMU_CB_FAR);
>>   	cbfrsynra = arm_smmu_gr1_read(smmu, ARM_SMMU_GR1_CBFRSYNRA(idx));
>>   
>> -	dev_err_ratelimited(smmu->dev,
>> -	"Unhandled context fault: fsr=0x%x, iova=0x%08lx, fsynr=0x%x, cbfrsynra=0x%x, cb=%d\n",
>> +	ret = report_iommu_fault(domain, dev, iova,
>> +		fsynr & ARM_SMMU_FSYNR0_WNR ? IOMMU_FAULT_WRITE : IOMMU_FAULT_READ);
>> +
>> +	if (ret == -ENOSYS)
>> +		dev_err_ratelimited(smmu->dev,
>> +		"Unhandled context fault: fsr=0x%x, iova=0x%08lx, fsynr=0x%x, cbfrsynra=0x%x, cb=%d\n",
>>   			    fsr, iova, fsynr, cbfrsynra, idx);
>>   
>> -	arm_smmu_cb_write(smmu, idx, ARM_SMMU_CB_FSR, fsr);
>> +	/*
>> +	 * If the iommu fault returns an error (except -ENOSYS) then assume that
>> +	 * they will handle resuming on their own
>> +	 */
>> +	if (!ret || ret == -ENOSYS)
>> +		arm_smmu_cb_write(smmu, idx, ARM_SMMU_CB_FSR, fsr);
> 
> Hmm, I don't grok this part. If the fault handler returned an error and
> we don't clear the FSR, won't we just re-take the irq immediately?

If we don't touch the FSR at all, yes. Even if we clear the fault 
indicator bits, the interrupt *might* remain asserted until a stalled 
transaction is actually resolved - that's that lovely IMP-DEF corner.

Robin.

> I think
> it would be better to do this unconditionally, and print the "Unhandled
> context fault" message for any non-zero value of ret.
> 
> Will
> 

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] iommu/arm-smmu: Add support for driver IOMMU fault handlers

[Robin Murphy]

On 2021-01-25 21:51, Jordan Crouse wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 12:53:17PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> On 2021-01-22 12:41, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:15:58PM -0700, Jordan Crouse wrote:
>>>> Call report_iommu_fault() to allow upper-level drivers to register their
>>>> own fault handlers.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jordan Crouse <jcrouse@codeaurora.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>>   drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
>>>>   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c
>>>> index 0f28a8614da3..7fd18bbda8f5 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c
>>>> @@ -427,6 +427,7 @@ static irqreturn_t arm_smmu_context_fault(int irq, void *dev)
>>>>   	struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain = to_smmu_domain(domain);
>>>>   	struct arm_smmu_device *smmu = smmu_domain->smmu;
>>>>   	int idx = smmu_domain->cfg.cbndx;
>>>> +	int ret;
>>>>   	fsr = arm_smmu_cb_read(smmu, idx, ARM_SMMU_CB_FSR);
>>>>   	if (!(fsr & ARM_SMMU_FSR_FAULT))
>>>> @@ -436,11 +437,20 @@ static irqreturn_t arm_smmu_context_fault(int irq, void *dev)
>>>>   	iova = arm_smmu_cb_readq(smmu, idx, ARM_SMMU_CB_FAR);
>>>>   	cbfrsynra = arm_smmu_gr1_read(smmu, ARM_SMMU_GR1_CBFRSYNRA(idx));
>>>> -	dev_err_ratelimited(smmu->dev,
>>>> -	"Unhandled context fault: fsr=0x%x, iova=0x%08lx, fsynr=0x%x, cbfrsynra=0x%x, cb=%d\n",
>>>> +	ret = report_iommu_fault(domain, dev, iova,
>>>> +		fsynr & ARM_SMMU_FSYNR0_WNR ? IOMMU_FAULT_WRITE : IOMMU_FAULT_READ);
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (ret == -ENOSYS)
>>>> +		dev_err_ratelimited(smmu->dev,
>>>> +		"Unhandled context fault: fsr=0x%x, iova=0x%08lx, fsynr=0x%x, cbfrsynra=0x%x, cb=%d\n",
>>>>   			    fsr, iova, fsynr, cbfrsynra, idx);
>>>> -	arm_smmu_cb_write(smmu, idx, ARM_SMMU_CB_FSR, fsr);
>>>> +	/*
>>>> +	 * If the iommu fault returns an error (except -ENOSYS) then assume that
>>>> +	 * they will handle resuming on their own
>>>> +	 */
>>>> +	if (!ret || ret == -ENOSYS)
>>>> +		arm_smmu_cb_write(smmu, idx, ARM_SMMU_CB_FSR, fsr);
>>>
>>> Hmm, I don't grok this part. If the fault handler returned an error and
>>> we don't clear the FSR, won't we just re-take the irq immediately?
>>
>> If we don't touch the FSR at all, yes. Even if we clear the fault indicator
>> bits, the interrupt *might* remain asserted until a stalled transaction is
>> actually resolved - that's that lovely IMP-DEF corner.
>>
>> Robin.
>>
> 
> This is for stall-on-fault. The idea is that if the developer chooses to do so
> we would stall the GPU after a fault long enough to take a picture of it with
> devcoredump and then release the FSR. Since we can't take the devcoredump from
> the interrupt handler we schedule it in a worker and then return an error
> to let the main handler know that we'll come back around clear the FSR later
> when we are done.

Sure, but clearing FSR is not writing to RESUME to resolve the stalled 
transaction(s). You can already snarf the FSR contents from your 
report_iommu_fault() handler if you want to, so either way I don't see 
what's gained by not clearing it as expected at the point where we've 
handled the *interrupt*, even if it will take longer to decide what to 
do with the underlying *fault* that it signalled. I'm particularly not 
keen on having unusual behaviour in the core interrupt handling which 
callers may unwittingly trigger, for the sake of one 
very-very-driver-specific flow having a slightly richer debugging 
experience.

For actually *handling* faults, I thought we were going to need to hook 
up the new IOPF fault queue stuff anyway?

Robin.

> It is assumed that we'll have to turn off interrupts in our handler to allow
> this to work. Its all very implementation specific, but then again we're
> assuming that if you want to do this then you know what you are doing.
> 
> In that spirit the error that skips the FSR should probably be something
> specific instead of "all errors" - that way a well meaning handler that returns
> a -EINVAL doesn't accidentally break itself.
> 
> Jordan
> 
>>> I think
>>> it would be better to do this unconditionally, and print the "Unhandled
>>> context fault" message for any non-zero value of ret.
> 
>>>
>>> Will
>>>
> 

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] iommu/arm-smmu: Add support for driver IOMMU fault handlers

[Rob Clark]

On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 3:41 AM Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On 2021-01-25 21:51, Jordan Crouse wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 12:53:17PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> >> On 2021-01-22 12:41, Will Deacon wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:15:58PM -0700, Jordan Crouse wrote:
> >>>> Call report_iommu_fault() to allow upper-level drivers to register their
> >>>> own fault handlers.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jordan Crouse <jcrouse@codeaurora.org>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>
> >>>>   drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
> >>>>   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c
> >>>> index 0f28a8614da3..7fd18bbda8f5 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c
> >>>> @@ -427,6 +427,7 @@ static irqreturn_t arm_smmu_context_fault(int irq, void *dev)
> >>>>    struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain = to_smmu_domain(domain);
> >>>>    struct arm_smmu_device *smmu = smmu_domain->smmu;
> >>>>    int idx = smmu_domain->cfg.cbndx;
> >>>> +  int ret;
> >>>>    fsr = arm_smmu_cb_read(smmu, idx, ARM_SMMU_CB_FSR);
> >>>>    if (!(fsr & ARM_SMMU_FSR_FAULT))
> >>>> @@ -436,11 +437,20 @@ static irqreturn_t arm_smmu_context_fault(int irq, void *dev)
> >>>>    iova = arm_smmu_cb_readq(smmu, idx, ARM_SMMU_CB_FAR);
> >>>>    cbfrsynra = arm_smmu_gr1_read(smmu, ARM_SMMU_GR1_CBFRSYNRA(idx));
> >>>> -  dev_err_ratelimited(smmu->dev,
> >>>> -  "Unhandled context fault: fsr=0x%x, iova=0x%08lx, fsynr=0x%x, cbfrsynra=0x%x, cb=%d\n",
> >>>> +  ret = report_iommu_fault(domain, dev, iova,
> >>>> +          fsynr & ARM_SMMU_FSYNR0_WNR ? IOMMU_FAULT_WRITE : IOMMU_FAULT_READ);
> >>>> +
> >>>> +  if (ret == -ENOSYS)
> >>>> +          dev_err_ratelimited(smmu->dev,
> >>>> +          "Unhandled context fault: fsr=0x%x, iova=0x%08lx, fsynr=0x%x, cbfrsynra=0x%x, cb=%d\n",
> >>>>                        fsr, iova, fsynr, cbfrsynra, idx);
> >>>> -  arm_smmu_cb_write(smmu, idx, ARM_SMMU_CB_FSR, fsr);
> >>>> +  /*
> >>>> +   * If the iommu fault returns an error (except -ENOSYS) then assume that
> >>>> +   * they will handle resuming on their own
> >>>> +   */
> >>>> +  if (!ret || ret == -ENOSYS)
> >>>> +          arm_smmu_cb_write(smmu, idx, ARM_SMMU_CB_FSR, fsr);
> >>>
> >>> Hmm, I don't grok this part. If the fault handler returned an error and
> >>> we don't clear the FSR, won't we just re-take the irq immediately?
> >>
> >> If we don't touch the FSR at all, yes. Even if we clear the fault indicator
> >> bits, the interrupt *might* remain asserted until a stalled transaction is
> >> actually resolved - that's that lovely IMP-DEF corner.
> >>
> >> Robin.
> >>
> >
> > This is for stall-on-fault. The idea is that if the developer chooses to do so
> > we would stall the GPU after a fault long enough to take a picture of it with
> > devcoredump and then release the FSR. Since we can't take the devcoredump from
> > the interrupt handler we schedule it in a worker and then return an error
> > to let the main handler know that we'll come back around clear the FSR later
> > when we are done.
>
> Sure, but clearing FSR is not writing to RESUME to resolve the stalled
> transaction(s). You can already snarf the FSR contents from your
> report_iommu_fault() handler if you want to, so either way I don't see
> what's gained by not clearing it as expected at the point where we've
> handled the *interrupt*, even if it will take longer to decide what to
> do with the underlying *fault* that it signalled. I'm particularly not
> keen on having unusual behaviour in the core interrupt handling which
> callers may unwittingly trigger, for the sake of one
> very-very-driver-specific flow having a slightly richer debugging
> experience.

Tbf, "slightly" is an understatement.. it is a big enough improvement
that I've hacked up deferred resume several times to debug various
issues. ;-)

(Which is always a bit of a PITA because of things moving around in
arm-smmu as well as the drm side of things.)

But from my recollection, we can clear FSR immediately, all we need to
do is defer writing ARM_SMMU_CB_RESUME

BR,
-R

>
> For actually *handling* faults, I thought we were going to need to hook
> up the new IOPF fault queue stuff anyway?
>
> Robin.
>
> > It is assumed that we'll have to turn off interrupts in our handler to allow
> > this to work. Its all very implementation specific, but then again we're
> > assuming that if you want to do this then you know what you are doing.
> >
> > In that spirit the error that skips the FSR should probably be something
> > specific instead of "all errors" - that way a well meaning handler that returns
> > a -EINVAL doesn't accidentally break itself.
> >
> > Jordan
> >
> >>> I think
> >>> it would be better to do this unconditionally, and print the "Unhandled
> >>> context fault" message for any non-zero value of ret.
> >
> >>>
> >>> Will
> >>>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> iommu mailing list
> iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] iommu/arm-smmu: Add support for driver IOMMU fault handlers

[Robin Murphy]

On 2021-01-26 16:05, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 3:41 AM Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2021-01-25 21:51, Jordan Crouse wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 12:53:17PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>>> On 2021-01-22 12:41, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:15:58PM -0700, Jordan Crouse wrote:
>>>>>> Call report_iommu_fault() to allow upper-level drivers to register their
>>>>>> own fault handlers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jordan Crouse <jcrouse@codeaurora.org>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
>>>>>>    1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c
>>>>>> index 0f28a8614da3..7fd18bbda8f5 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c
>>>>>> @@ -427,6 +427,7 @@ static irqreturn_t arm_smmu_context_fault(int irq, void *dev)
>>>>>>     struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain = to_smmu_domain(domain);
>>>>>>     struct arm_smmu_device *smmu = smmu_domain->smmu;
>>>>>>     int idx = smmu_domain->cfg.cbndx;
>>>>>> +  int ret;
>>>>>>     fsr = arm_smmu_cb_read(smmu, idx, ARM_SMMU_CB_FSR);
>>>>>>     if (!(fsr & ARM_SMMU_FSR_FAULT))
>>>>>> @@ -436,11 +437,20 @@ static irqreturn_t arm_smmu_context_fault(int irq, void *dev)
>>>>>>     iova = arm_smmu_cb_readq(smmu, idx, ARM_SMMU_CB_FAR);
>>>>>>     cbfrsynra = arm_smmu_gr1_read(smmu, ARM_SMMU_GR1_CBFRSYNRA(idx));
>>>>>> -  dev_err_ratelimited(smmu->dev,
>>>>>> -  "Unhandled context fault: fsr=0x%x, iova=0x%08lx, fsynr=0x%x, cbfrsynra=0x%x, cb=%d\n",
>>>>>> +  ret = report_iommu_fault(domain, dev, iova,
>>>>>> +          fsynr & ARM_SMMU_FSYNR0_WNR ? IOMMU_FAULT_WRITE : IOMMU_FAULT_READ);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +  if (ret == -ENOSYS)
>>>>>> +          dev_err_ratelimited(smmu->dev,
>>>>>> +          "Unhandled context fault: fsr=0x%x, iova=0x%08lx, fsynr=0x%x, cbfrsynra=0x%x, cb=%d\n",
>>>>>>                         fsr, iova, fsynr, cbfrsynra, idx);
>>>>>> -  arm_smmu_cb_write(smmu, idx, ARM_SMMU_CB_FSR, fsr);
>>>>>> +  /*
>>>>>> +   * If the iommu fault returns an error (except -ENOSYS) then assume that
>>>>>> +   * they will handle resuming on their own
>>>>>> +   */
>>>>>> +  if (!ret || ret == -ENOSYS)
>>>>>> +          arm_smmu_cb_write(smmu, idx, ARM_SMMU_CB_FSR, fsr);
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm, I don't grok this part. If the fault handler returned an error and
>>>>> we don't clear the FSR, won't we just re-take the irq immediately?
>>>>
>>>> If we don't touch the FSR at all, yes. Even if we clear the fault indicator
>>>> bits, the interrupt *might* remain asserted until a stalled transaction is
>>>> actually resolved - that's that lovely IMP-DEF corner.
>>>>
>>>> Robin.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is for stall-on-fault. The idea is that if the developer chooses to do so
>>> we would stall the GPU after a fault long enough to take a picture of it with
>>> devcoredump and then release the FSR. Since we can't take the devcoredump from
>>> the interrupt handler we schedule it in a worker and then return an error
>>> to let the main handler know that we'll come back around clear the FSR later
>>> when we are done.
>>
>> Sure, but clearing FSR is not writing to RESUME to resolve the stalled
>> transaction(s). You can already snarf the FSR contents from your
>> report_iommu_fault() handler if you want to, so either way I don't see
>> what's gained by not clearing it as expected at the point where we've
>> handled the *interrupt*, even if it will take longer to decide what to
>> do with the underlying *fault* that it signalled. I'm particularly not
>> keen on having unusual behaviour in the core interrupt handling which
>> callers may unwittingly trigger, for the sake of one
>> very-very-driver-specific flow having a slightly richer debugging
>> experience.
> 
> Tbf, "slightly" is an understatement.. it is a big enough improvement
> that I've hacked up deferred resume several times to debug various
> issues. ;-)

Oh, fear not, I fully appreciate that keeping the GPU stalled on a 
faulting transaction is a game-changer in itself ("almost like a real 
MMU!"). That comment was only aimed at whatever the perceived benefits 
are of deliberately not trying to clear the SMMU interrupt (even if it 
*would* stay clear). I have no issue with calling report_iommu_fault(), 
I'm just wary of doing anything weird with the result.

> (Which is always a bit of a PITA because of things moving around in
> arm-smmu as well as the drm side of things.)
> 
> But from my recollection, we can clear FSR immediately, all we need to
> do is defer writing ARM_SMMU_CB_RESUME

Phew! Thanks for the reassurance :)

Robin.

> 
> BR,
> -R
> 
>>
>> For actually *handling* faults, I thought we were going to need to hook
>> up the new IOPF fault queue stuff anyway?
>>
>> Robin.
>>
>>> It is assumed that we'll have to turn off interrupts in our handler to allow
>>> this to work. Its all very implementation specific, but then again we're
>>> assuming that if you want to do this then you know what you are doing.
>>>
>>> In that spirit the error that skips the FSR should probably be something
>>> specific instead of "all errors" - that way a well meaning handler that returns
>>> a -EINVAL doesn't accidentally break itself.
>>>
>>> Jordan
>>>
>>>>> I think
>>>>> it would be better to do this unconditionally, and print the "Unhandled
>>>>> context fault" message for any non-zero value of ret.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Will
>>>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> iommu mailing list
>> iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel