From: Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>
To: Hiroshi Doyu <hdoyu@nvidia.com>
Cc: "joro@8bytes.org" <joro@8bytes.org>,
"iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org"
<iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linaro-mm-sig-bounces@lists.linaro.org"
<linaro-mm-sig-bounces@lists.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: IOMMU: Tegra30: Add iommu_ops for SMMU driver
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:46:01 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120124134601.GT27414@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120124.154121.1062920821192552748.hdoyu@nvidia.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1930 bytes --]
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 02:41:21PM +0100, Hiroshi Doyu wrote:
> From: Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: IOMMU: Tegra30: Add iommu_ops for SMMU driver
> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:43:10 +0100
> Message-ID: <20120123154310.GC6269@8bytes.org>
>
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&as->lock, flags);
> > > +
> > > + domain->priv = NULL;
> > > + dev_dbg(smmu->dev, "smmu_as@%p\n", as);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static int smmu_iommu_attach_dev(struct iommu_domain *domain,
> > > + struct device *dev)
> > > +{
> > > + struct smmu_as *as = domain->priv;
> > > + struct smmu_device *smmu = as->smmu;
> >
> > Hmm, this looks like there is a 1-1 mapping between hardware SMMU
> > devices and domains. This is not consistent with IOMMU-API semantics
> > where a domain can contain devices behind different SMMUs. Please fix
> > that.
>
> Actually I really like the concept of this "domain" now, which hides
> the H/W hierarchy from users.
>
> But in Tegra SMMU/GART case, there's a single one IOMMU device in the
> system. Keeping a iommu device list in a domain and iterating iommu
> device list in each iommu_ops seem to be so nice, but I'm afraid that
> this may be a bit too much when one already knows that there's only
> one IOMMU device in the system.
>
> If there's no actual problem for 1-1 mapping between IOMMU H/Ws and
> domains, I think that it may not so bad to keep the original code(1-1)
> for GART and SMMU. What do you think?
I think it boils down to "extensability". If you can truly/fully
guarantee that there will *always* be a single IOMMU on all upcoming
Tegras, then it's really overkill.
But if there's even a remote possibility of the HW being changed and you
end up with more IOMMUs, things start to feel necessary for the sake of
making it easy to extend.
my 2 cents, feel free to ignore ;-)
--
balbi
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-01-24 13:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-01-05 7:11 [PATCH v3 0/2] ARM: IOMMU: tegra: Add iommu_ops for GART/SMMU driver Hiroshi DOYU
2012-01-05 7:11 ` [PATCH 1/2] ARM: IOMMU: Tegra20: Add iommu_ops for GART driver Hiroshi DOYU
2012-01-23 15:00 ` Joerg Roedel
2012-01-25 7:40 ` Hiroshi Doyu
2012-01-26 11:58 ` joro
2012-01-26 14:45 ` Hiroshi Doyu
2012-01-05 7:11 ` [PATCH 2/2] ARM: IOMMU: Tegra30: Add iommu_ops for SMMU driver Hiroshi DOYU
2012-01-23 15:43 ` Joerg Roedel
2012-01-24 9:57 ` Hiroshi Doyu
2012-01-24 11:04 ` Joerg Roedel
2012-01-24 11:36 ` Hiroshi Doyu
2012-01-24 11:57 ` joerg.roedel
2012-01-24 12:07 ` Hiroshi Doyu
2012-01-24 13:41 ` Hiroshi Doyu
2012-01-24 13:46 ` Felipe Balbi [this message]
2012-01-24 14:25 ` joro
2012-01-25 7:39 ` Hiroshi Doyu
2012-01-26 14:59 ` joro
2012-01-05 7:17 ` [PATCH v3 0/2] ARM: IOMMU: tegra: Add iommu_ops for GART/SMMU driver Hiroshi Doyu
2012-01-05 12:53 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-01-05 14:29 ` Hiroshi Doyu
2012-01-05 14:46 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-01-11 14:24 ` Hiroshi Doyu
2012-01-09 0:39 ` KyongHo Cho
2012-01-09 11:45 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120124134601.GT27414@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com \
--to=balbi@ti.com \
--cc=hdoyu@nvidia.com \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=linaro-mm-sig-bounces@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®