Re: [PATCH 0/3] arm-smmu-v3: Add PMCG child support and update PMU MMIO mapping

[Peng Fan <peng.fan@oss.nxp.com>]

Hi Robin,

On Fri, Apr 10, 2026 at 01:07:29PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
>On 08/04/2026 2:47 pm, Peng Fan wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 08, 2026 at 12:15:31PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> > On 2026-04-08 8:51 am, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
>> > > This patch series adds proper support for describing and probing the
>> > > Arm SMMU v3 PMCG (Performance Monitor Control Group) as a child node of
>> > > the SMMU in Devicetree, and updates the relevant drivers accordingly.
>> > > 
>> > > The SMMU v3 architecture allows an optional PMCG block, typically
>> > > associated with TCUs, to be implemented within the SMMU register
>> > > address space. For example, mmu700 PMCG is at the offset 0x2000 of the
>> > > TCU page 0.
>> > 
>> > But what's wrong with the existing binding? Especially given that it even has
>> > an upstream user already:
>> > 
>> > https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/c/aef9703dcbf8
>> > 
>> > > Patch 1 updates the SMMU v3 Devicetree binding to allow PMCG child nodes,
>> > > referencing the existing arm,smmu-v3-pmcg binding.
>> > > 
>> > > Patch 2 updates the arm-smmu-v3 driver to populate platform devices for
>> > > child nodes described in DT once the SMMU probe succeeds.
>> > > 
>> > > Patch 3 updates the SMMUv3 PMU driver to correctly handle MMIO mapping when
>> > > PMCG is described as a child node. The PMCG registers occupy a sub-region
>> > > of the parent SMMU MMIO window, which is already requested by the SMMU
>> > 
>> > That has not been the case since 52f3fab0067d ("iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Don't
>> > reserve implementation defined register space") nearly 6 years ago, where the
>> > whole purpose was to support Arm's PMCG implementation properly. What kernel
>> > is this based on?
>> 
>> Seems I am wrong. I thought PMCG is in page 0, so there were resource
>> conflicts. I just retest without this patchset, all goes well.
>> 
>> But from dt perspective, should the TCU PMCG node be child node of
>> SMMU node?
>
>No. PMCGs can be used entirely independently of the SMMU itself, and while
>most of the events do relate to SMMU translation and thus aren't necessarily
>meaningful if it's not in use, there are still some which can be useful for
>basic traffic counting, monitoring GPT/translation activity from _other_
>security states (if observation is delegated to Non-Secure) and possibly
>other things, even if the "main" Non-Secure SMMU interface isn't advertised
>at all. It would be unreasonable to require the SMMU node to be present and
>enabled *and* have a driver to populate PMCGs, to monitor events which are
>outside the scope of that driver.

Thanks for explaining this in detail.

Just have one more question, we are using mmu-700, but MMU-700 implementation
defined TCU and TBU events are not supported.

Should we introduce a compatible string saying "arm,mmu700-tcu-pmcg" or
"arm,mmu700-tbu-pmcg"? TBH, I have not checked MMU600(AE) or else.

Thanks,
Peng

>
>Thanks,
>Robin.
>