Re: [PATCH] devicetree: Add generic IOMMU device tree bindings

Arnd Bergmann
2014-05-20T12:41:18Z

On Tuesday 20 May 2014 14:02:43 Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 01:15:48PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Tuesday 20 May 2014 13:05:37 Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:04:54PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > On Monday 19 May 2014 22:59:46 Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 08:34:07PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> [...]
> > > > > > You should never need #size-cells > #address-cells
> > > > >
> > > > > That was always my impression as well. But how then do you represent the
> > > > > full 4 GiB address space in a 32-bit system? It starts at 0 and ends at
> > > > > 4 GiB - 1, which makes it 4 GiB large. That's:
> > > > >
> > > > > <0 1 0>
> > > > >
> > > > > With #address-cells = <1> and #size-cells = <1> the best you can do is:
> > > > >
> > > > > <0 0xffffffff>
> > > > >
> > > > > but that's not accurate.
> > > >
> > > > I think we've done both in the past, either extended #size-cells or
> > > > taken 0xffffffff as a special token. Note that in your example,
> > > > the iommu actually needs #address-cells = <2> anyway.
> > >
> > > But it needs #address-cells = <2> only to encode an ID in addition to
> > > the address. If this was a single-master IOMMU then there'd be no need
> > > for the ID.
> >
> > Right. But for a single-master IOMMU, there is no need to specify
> > any additional data, it could have #address-cells=<0> if we take the
> > optimization you suggested.
>
> Couldn't a single-master IOMMU be windowed?

Ah, yes. That would actually be like an IBM pSeries, which has a windowed
IOMMU but uses one window per virtual machine. In that case, the window could
be a property of the iommu node though, rather than part of the address
in the link.

> > > > The main advantage I think would be for IOMMUs that use the PCI b/d/f
> > > > numbers as IDs. These can have #address-cells=<3>, #size-cells=<2>
> > > > and have an empty dma-ranges property in the PCI host bridge node,
> > > > and interpret this as using the same encoding as the PCI BARs in
> > > > the ranges property.
> > >
> > > I'm somewhat confused here, since you said earlier:
> > >
> > > > After giving the ranges stuff some more thought, I have come to the
> > > > conclusion that using #iommu-cells should work fine for almost
> > > > all cases, including windowed iommus, because the window is not
> > > > actually needed in the device, but only in the iommu, wihch is of course
> > > > free to interpret the arguments as addresses.
> > >
> > > But now you seem to be saying that we should still be using the
> > > #address-cells and #size-cells properties in the IOMMU node to determine
> > > the length of the specifier.
> >
> > I probably wasn't clear. I think we can make it work either way, but
> > my feeling is that using #address-cells/#size-cells gives us a nicer
> > syntax for the more complex cases.
>
> Okay, so in summary we'd have something like this for simple cases:
>
> Required properties:
> --------------------
> - #address-cells: The number of cells in an IOMMU specifier needed to encode
> an address.
> - #size-cells: The number of cells in an IOMMU specifier needed to represent
> the length of an address range.
>
> Typical values for the above include:
> - #address-cells = <0>, size-cells = <0>: Single master IOMMU devices are not
> configurable and therefore no additional information needs to be encoded in
> the specifier. This may also apply to multiple master IOMMU devices that do
> not allow the association of masters to be configured.
> - #address-cells = <1>, size-cells = <0>: Multiple master IOMMU devices may
> need to be configured in order to enable translation for a given master. In
> such cases the single address cell corresponds to the master device's ID.
> - #address-cells = <2>, size-cells = <2>: Some IOMMU devices allow the DMA
> window for masters to be configured. The first cell of the address in this
> may contain the master device's ID for example, while the second cell could
> contain the start of the DMA window for the given device. The length of the
> DMA window is specified by two additional cells.
>
> Examples:
> =========
>
> Single-master IOMMU:
> --------------------
>
> iommu {
> #address-cells = <0>;
> #size-cells = <0>;
> };
>
> master {
> iommus = <&/iommu>;
> };
>
> Multiple-master IOMMU with fixed associations:
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> /* multiple-master IOMMU */
> iommu {
> /*
> * Masters are statically associated with this IOMMU and
> * address translation is always enabled.
> */
> #iommu-cells = <0>;
> };

copied wrong? I guess you mean #address-cells=<0>/#size-cells=<0> here.

> /* static association with IOMMU */
> master@1 {
> reg = <1>;
> iommus = <&/iommu>;
> };
>
> /* static association with IOMMU */
> master@2 {
> reg = <2>;
> iommus = <&/iommu>;
> };
>
> Multiple-master IOMMU:
> ----------------------
>
> iommu {
> /* the specifier represents the ID of the master */
> #address-cells = <1>;
> #size-cells = <0>;
> };
>
> master {
> /* device has master ID 42 in the IOMMU */
> iommus = <&/iommu 42>;
> };
>
> Multiple-master device:
> -----------------------
>
> /* single-master IOMMU */
> iommu@1 {
> reg = <1>;
> #address-cells = <0>;
> #size-cells = <0>;
> };
>
> /* multiple-master IOMMU */
> iommu@2 {
> reg = <2>;
> #address-cells = <1>;
> #size-cells = <0>;
> };
>
> /* device with two master interfaces */
> master {
> iommus = <&/iommu@1>, /* master of the single-master IOMMU */
> <&/iommu@2 42>; /* ID 42 in multiple-master IOMMU */
> };
>
> Multiple-master IOMMU with configurable DMA window:
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> / {
> #address-cells = <1>;
> #size-cells = <1>;
>
> iommu {
> /* master ID, address of DMA window */
> #address-cells = <2>;
> #size-cells = <2>;
> };
>
> master {
> /* master ID 42, 4 GiB DMA window starting at 0 */
> iommus = <&/iommu 42 0 0x1 0x0>;
> };
> };
>
> Does that sound about right?

Yes, sounds great. I would probably leave out the Multiple-master device
from the examples, since that seems to be a rather obscure case.

I would like to add an explanation about dma-ranges to the binding:

8<--------
The parent bus of the iommu must have a valid "dma-ranges" property
describing how the physical address space of the IOMMU maps into
memory.
A device with an "iommus" property will ignore the "dma-ranges" property
of the parent node and rely on the IOMMU for translation instead.
Using an "iommus" property in bus device nodes with "dma-ranges"
specifying how child devices relate to the IOMMU is a possible extension
but is not recommended until this binding gets extended.
----------->8

Does that make sense to you? We can change what we say about
dma-ranges, I mainly want to be clear with what is or is not
allowed at this point.

Arnd