mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
To: Peng Fan <peng.fan@oss.nxp.com>
Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	"Joerg Roedel (AMD)" <joro@8bytes.org>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
	iommu@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] iommu/dma: Fix DMA_ATTR_MMIO swiotlb rejection
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2026 18:49:59 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260918154959.GZ13683@unreal> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aq1GyO3vv8W6Adlr@shlinux89>

On Fri, Sep 18, 2026 at 10:12:24PM +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
> Hi Leon,
> 
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2026 at 03:37:36PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> >On Wed, Sep 16, 2026 at 11:23:32PM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
> >> Commit f9374de14c0e8 ("iommu/dma: implement DMA_ATTR_MMIO for
> >> iommu_dma_(un)map_phys()") and commit c288d657dd515 ("iommu/dma: implement
> >> DMA_ATTR_MMIO for dma_iova_link().") added DMA_ATTR_MMIO support to skip
> >> swiotlb bouncing and cache flushing for MMIO resources. However, both
> >> implementations placed the DMA_ATTR_MMIO check inside the swiotlb bounce block,
> >> causing non-page-aligned MMIO mappings to be rejected outright instead of
> >> skipping the bounce and proceeding to create the IOVA mapping.
> >> 
> >> This breaks dma_map_resource() for any non-page-aligned device register when
> >> behind an IOMMU: DMA controllers that map peripheral FIFO addresses
> >> (e.g. SPI controller TX/RX data registers) through an IOMMU for per-channel
> >> isolation.
> >> 
> >> Both patches move the DMA_ATTR_MMIO check before the swiotlb block so MMIO,
> >> resources skip the entire bounce path and fall through directly to the IOMMU
> >> mapping function.
> >
> >While I understand the rationale behind the first patch, why do we need the
> >second one? Do we want to allow unaligned addresses for the _link_ as well?
> >Current users don't need it.
> 
> My intention with the second patch was to make the DMA_ATTR_MMIO handling
> consistent with iommu_dma_map_phys(), since MMIO cannot be bounced by
> SWIOTLB in either case.
> 
> However, I don't have a dma_iova_link() user that requires an
> unaligned MMIO address, so no need to relax the existing restriction there.
>  
> I'll drop the second patch and keep this fix scoped to iommu_dma_map_phys()
> in v2. Does that sounds good to you?
> 
> BTW, does patch 1 look good to you?

Yes, for both questions.

Thanks

> 
> Thanks,
> Peng
> 
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >> 
> >> Tested on NXP i.MX95 with ARM SMMUv3 where the fsl-edma DMA controller maps
> >> SPI peripheral FIFO registers (non-page-aligned) via dma_map_resource()
> >> through per-channel IOMMU domains. Only the iommu_dma_map_phys() path was
> >> exercised; the dma_iova_link() fix is by code inspection of the same pattern.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
> >> ---
> >> Peng Fan (2):
> >>       iommu/dma: skip swiotlb bounce for DMA_ATTR_MMIO in iommu_dma_map_phys
> >>       iommu/dma: skip swiotlb bounce for DMA_ATTR_MMIO in dma_iova_link()
> >> 
> >>  drivers/iommu/dma-iommu.c | 8 ++++----
> >>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >> ---
> >> base-commit: e6e35979777d646fe3c7c94dca7dd32fb25d45f4
> >> change-id: 20260916-iommu-dma-fix-9f55af1beb46
> >> 
> >> Best regards,
> >> --  
> >> Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
> >> 
> >> 
> >
> >
> 

      parent reply	other threads:[~2026-09-18 15:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-09-16 15:23 Peng Fan (OSS)
2026-09-16 15:23 ` [PATCH RFC 1/2] iommu/dma: skip swiotlb bounce for DMA_ATTR_MMIO in iommu_dma_map_phys Peng Fan (OSS)
2026-09-18 14:37   ` Robin Murphy
2026-09-16 15:23 ` [PATCH RFC 2/2] iommu/dma: skip swiotlb bounce for DMA_ATTR_MMIO in dma_iova_link() Peng Fan (OSS)
2026-09-18 12:37 ` [PATCH RFC 0/2] iommu/dma: Fix DMA_ATTR_MMIO swiotlb rejection Leon Romanovsky
2026-09-18 14:12   ` Peng Fan
2026-09-18 15:43     ` Marek Szyprowski
2026-09-18 15:49     ` Leon Romanovsky [this message]

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=20260918154959.GZ13683@unreal \
    --to=leon@kernel.org \
    --cc=iommu@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
    --cc=joro@8bytes.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=m.szyprowski@samsung.com \
    --cc=peng.fan@nxp.com \
    --cc=peng.fan@oss.nxp.com \
    --cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
    --cc=will@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®