Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Introduce iommu-map-masked for platform devices

[Bryan O'Donoghue <bod@kernel.org>]

On 13/10/2025 13:31, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 12:20:54PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> On 2025-10-09 7:25 pm, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 09, 2025 at 06:03:29PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>>> On 2025-10-09 2:19 pm, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Oct 09, 2025 at 11:46:55AM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-10-08 8:10 pm, Charan Teja Kalla wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/29/2025 3:50 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>>>>>>>> USECASE [1]:
>>>>>>>>> -----------
>>>>>>>>> Video IP, 32bit, have 2 hardware sub blocks(or can be called as
>>>>>>>>> functions) called as pixel and nonpixel blocks, that does decode and
>>>>>>>>> encode of the video stream. These sub blocks are __configured__ to
>>>>>>>>> generate different stream IDs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So please clarify why you can't:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> a) Describe the sub-blocks as individual child nodes each with their own
>>>>>>>> distinct "iommus" property
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks Robin for your time. Sorry for late reply as I really didn't have
>>>>>>> concrete answer for this question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First let me clarify the word "sub blocks" -- This is just the logical
>>>>>>> separation with no separate address space to really able to define them
>>>>>>> as sub devices. Think of it like a single video IP with 2 dma
>>>>>>> engines(used for pixel and non-pixel purpose).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I should agree that the child-nodes in the device tree is the easy one
>>>>>>> and infact, it is how being used in downstream.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For upstream -- Since there is no real address space to interact with
>>>>>>> these sub-blocks(or logical blocks), does it really qualify to define as
>>>>>>> child nodes in the device tree? I see there is some push back[1].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who says you need an address space? Child nodes without "reg" properties,
>>>>>> referenced by name, compatible or phandle, exist all over the place for all
>>>>>> manner of reasons. If there are distinct logical functions with their own
>>>>>> distinct hardware properties, then I would say having child nodes to
>>>>>> describe and associate those properties with their respective functions is
>>>>>> entirely natural and appropriate. The first example that comes to mind of
>>>>>> where this is a well-established practice is PMICs - to pick one at random:
>>>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/qcom,rpmh-regulator.yaml
>>>>>
>>>>> Logical function, that's correct. And also note, for PMICs that practice
>>>>> has bitten us back. For PM8008 we switched back to a non-subdevice
>>>>> representation.
>>>>>
>>>>>> For bonus irony, you can't take the other approaches without inherently
>>>>>> *introducing* a notional address space in the form of your logical function
>>>>>> IDs anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>       > or:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> b) Use standard "iommu-map" which already supports mapping a masked
>>>>>>>> input ID to an arbitrary IOMMU specifier
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think clients is also required to program non-zero smr mask, where as
>>>>>>> iommu-map just maps the id to an IOMMU specifier(sid). Please LMK if I
>>>>>>> am unable to catch your thought here.
>>>>>> An IOMMU specifier is whatever the target IOMMU node's #iommu-cells says it
>>>>>> is. The fact that Linux's parsing code only works properly for #iommu-cells
>>>>>> = 1 is not really a DT binding problem (other than it stemming from a loose
>>>>>> assumption stated in the PCI binding's use of the property).
>>>>>
>>>>> I really don't like the idea of extending the #iommu-cells. The ARM SMMU
>>>>> has only one cell, which is correct even for our platforms. The fact
>>>>> that we need to identify different IOMMU SIDs (and handle them in a
>>>>> differnt ways) is internal to the video device (and several other
>>>>> devices). There is nothing to be handled on the ARM SMMU side.
>>>>
>>>> Huh? So if you prefer not to change anything, are you suggesting this series
>>>> doesn't need to exist at all? Now I'm thoroughly confused...
>>>
>>> Hmm. We need changes, but I don't feel like adding the FUNCTION_ID to
>>> #iommu-cells is the best idea.
>>
>> What? No, any function ID would be an *input* to a map, not part of the
>> output specifier; indeed it should never go anywhere near the IOMMU, I don't
>> think anyone suggested that.
> 
> It was Bryan, https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/9bae595a-597e-46e6-8eb2-44424fe21db6@linaro.org
> 
>>
>>>> If you want to use SMR masks, then you absolutely need #iommu-cells = 2,
>>>> because that is the SMMU binding for using SMR masks. It would definitely
>>>
>>> I'm sorry. Yes, we have #iommu-cells = <2>.
>>>
>>>> not be OK to have some magic property trying to smuggle
>>>> IOMMU-driver-specific data contrary to what the IOMMU node itself says. As
>>>> for iommu-map, I don't see what would be objectionable about improving the
>>>> parsing to respect a real #iommu-cells value rather than hard-coding an
>>>> assumption. Yes, we'd probably need to forbid entries with length > 1
>>>> targeting IOMMUs with #iommu-cells > 1, since the notion of a linear
>>>
>>> This will break e.g. PCIe on Qualcomm platforms:
>>>
>>>                           iommu-map = <0x0   &apps_smmu 0x1400 0x1>,
>>>                                       <0x100 &apps_smmu 0x1401 0x1>;
>>>
>>>
>>> But this seems unlogical anyway wrt. apps_smmu having #iommu-cells =
>>> <2>. It depends on ARM SMMU ignoring the second cell when it's not
>>> present.
>>
>> Urgh, yes, that's just broken already :(
>>
>> At least they all seem to be a sufficiently consistent pattern that a
>> targeted workaround to detect old DTBs looks feasible (I'm thinking, if
>> iommu-map size % 4 == 0 and cells n*4 + 3 are all 1 and cells n*4 + 1 are
>> all the same phandle to an IOMMU with #iommu-cells == 2, then parse as if
>> #iommu-cells == 1)
> 
> How do we handle the case of #iommu-cells = <2>? I.e. what should be the
> "fixed" representation of the map above? Should we have usual cells and
> one extra "length" just for the sake of it?
> 
>                 iommu-map = <0x0   &apps_smmu 0x1400 0x0 0x1>,
>                             <0x100 &apps_smmu 0x1401 0x0 0x1>;
> 
> 
> I really like the idea of fixing iommu-map as that would remove the need
> for other properties, but
> 
>>
>>>> relationship between the input ID and the output specifier falls apart when
>>>> the specifier is complex, but that seems simple enough to implement and
>>>> document (even if it's too fiddly to describe in the schema itself), and
>>>> still certainly no worse than having another property that *is* just
>>>> iommu-map with implicit length = 1.
>>>>
>>>> And if you want individual StreamIDs for logical functions to be attachable
>>>> to distinct contexts then those functions absolutely must be visible to the
>>>> IOMMU layer and the SMMU driver as independent devices with their own unique
>>>> properties, which means either they come that way from the DT as of_platform
>>>> devices in the first place, or you implement a full bus_type abstraction
>>>
>>> Not necessarily. Tegra display driver creates a device for each context
>>> on its own.
>> No, the *display* driver does not; the host1x bus driver does, which is the
>> point I was making - that has a proper bus abstraction tied into the IOMMU
>> layer, such that the devices are correctly configured long before the actual
>> DRM driver(s) get anywhere near them.
> 
> Ack. I agree. it's drivers/gpu/host1x/context, not drivers/gpu/drm/
> 
>>
>>> In fact, using OF to create context devices is _less_
>>> robust, because now the driver needs to sync, checking that there is a
>>> subdevice, that it has probed, etc. Using manually created devices seems
>>> better from my POV.
>>
>> Huh? A simple call to of_platform_populate() is somehow less robust than
>> open-coding much of the same logic that of_platform_populate() does plus a
>> bunch of hackery to try to fake up an of_node to make the new device appear
>> to own the appropriate properties?
>>
>> Having entire sub-*drivers* for child devices or not is an orthogonal issue
>> regardless of whichever way they are created.
> 
> I was (again) looking at host1x. It doesn't fake of_node (nor does it
> have actual OF nodes). Instead it just mapps IOMMUs directly to the
> context devices. Compare this to misc/fastrpc.c, which has subdevices
> and drivers to map contexts. The latter one looks less robust.
> 
> And from DT perspective compare:
> 
> 		fastrpc {
> 			compatible = "qcom,fastrpc";
> 			#address-cells = <1>;
> 			#size-cells = <0>;
> 
> 			compute-cb@3 {
> 				compatible = "qcom,fastrpc-compute-cb";
> 				reg = <3>;
> 				iommus = <&apps_smmu 0x1803 0x0>;
> 			};
> 
> 			compute-cb@4 {
> 				compatible = "qcom,fastrpc-compute-cb";
> 				reg = <4>;
> 				iommus = <&apps_smmu 0x1804 0x0>;
> 			};
> 
> 			compute-cb@5 {
> 				compatible = "qcom,fastrpc-compute-cb";
> 				reg = <5>;
> 				iommus = <&apps_smmu 0x1805 0x0>;
> 			};
> 		};

Sorry this is perfect.

Each function id can be associated with a device and a compat string 
associated with it.

There's no weirdness with iommu-map, you get a struct device for your 
SID and you associate the SID with the FUNCTION_ID you want.

In fact the FUNCTION_ID could conceivably be the reg. It could be stored 
in platform code.

---
bod