Re: [PATCH v4] devicetree: Add generic IOMMU device tree bindings

Rob Clark
2014-07-12T11:26:43Z

On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 5:39 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 09:55:14PM +0100, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Thierry Reding
>> <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > From: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
>> ok, so I was working through this to try to convert my
>> {qcom,msm}-iommu-v0 RFC over to using these bindings. For background,
>> I was initially using something that looked a bit more like the
>> current arm-smmu bindings:
>>
>> gpu {
>> #stream-id-cells = <16>;
>> ...
>> };
>>
>> gfx3d: qcom,iommu@7c00000 {
>> compatible = "qcom,iommu-v0";
>> ...
>> mmu-masters =
>> /* gfx3d_user: */
>> <&gpu 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15>,
>> /* gfx3d_priv: */
>> <&gpu 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31>;
>> };
>>
>> gfx3d1: qcom,iommu@7d00000 {
>> compatible = "qcom,iommu-v0";
>> ...
>> mmu-masters =
>> /* gfx3d_user: */
>> <&gpu 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15>,
>> /* gfx3d_priv: */
>> <&gpu 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31>;
>> };
>>
>> With my current arrangement, I have everything I need when the iommu
>> device is probed to set up each of the context banks
>>
>> This proposal inverts that relationship. Which forces me to do a lot
>> more (including DT parsing) on device attach. Which I'm not a huge
>> fan of. Ie. if I even wanted to try to implement per-process
>> pagetables for gpu without completely going behind the IOMMU API's
>> back, I would want attach/detach to be as lightweight as possible.
>
> I think we'd have to walk the entire device-tree at IOMMU probe time in
> order to enumerate the masters, which sounds horrible... If we want to do
> clever SMR allocation on the ARM SMMU (as I've been discussing with Olav),
> we're going to need knowledge about *all* the valid Stream IDs in the system
> before we can program *any* translations.

I guess walking the whole tree would work.. but it really doesn't
really sound like a nice solution ;-)

also, I'm not really sure to what extent it is bad form to assume the
tree is static.

>> Was there actually a good reason for having the device link to the
>> iommu rather than the other way around? How much would people hate it
>> if I just ignore the generic bindings and use something that works for
>> me instead. I mean, it isn't exactly like there is going to be .dts
>> re-use across different SoC's.. and at least with current IOMMU API
>> some sort of of_get_named_iommu() API doesn't really make sense.
>
> The thing is, if you end up ignoring the generic binding then we have two
> IOMMUs using the same (ARM SMMU) binding and it begs the question as to
> which is the more generic! I know we're keen to get this merged, but merging
> something that people won't use and calling it generic doesn't seem ideal
> either. We do, however, desperately need a generic binding.

yeah, ignoring the generic binding is not my first choice. I'd rather
have something that works well for everyone. But I wasn't really sure
if the current proposal was arbitrary, or if there are some
conflicting requirements between different platforms.

> Turning the question around; Thierry -- what are the issue in using
> something like the ARM SMMU binding (master device IDs held in the IOMMU
> node) for the nvidia IOMMU?

+1 for doing it more like how arm-smmu is currently.. that works much
better for me :-)

BR,
-R

> Will