Re: [PATCH v6 3/5] iommu: Add verisilicon IOMMU driver

[Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>]

On 2025-07-18 12:45 pm, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 04:56:53PM +0200, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
>> Le 14/07/2025 à 14:08, Will Deacon a écrit :
>>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 10:24:44AM +0200, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
>>>> +/* vsi iommu regs address */
>>>> +#define VSI_MMU_CONFIG1_BASE			0x1ac
>>>> +#define VSI_MMU_AHB_EXCEPTION_BASE		0x380
>>>> +#define VSI_MMU_AHB_CONTROL_BASE		0x388
>>>> +#define VSI_MMU_AHB_TLB_ARRAY_BASE_L_BASE	0x38C
>>>> +
>>>> +/* MMU register offsets */
>>>> +#define VSI_MMU_FLUSH_BASE		0x184
>>>> +#define VSI_MMU_BIT_FLUSH		BIT(4)
>>>> +
>>>> +#define VSI_MMU_PAGE_FAULT_ADDR		0x380
>>>> +#define VSI_MMU_STATUS_BASE		0x384	/* IRQ status */
>>>> +
>>>> +#define VSI_MMU_BIT_ENABLE		BIT(0)
>>>> +
>>>> +#define VSI_MMU_OUT_OF_BOUND		BIT(28)
>>>> +/* Irq mask */
>>>> +#define VSI_MMU_IRQ_MASK		0x7
>>>> +
>>>> +#define VSI_DTE_PT_ADDRESS_MASK		0xffffffc0
>>>> +#define VSI_DTE_PT_VALID		BIT(0)
>>>> +
>>>> +#define VSI_PAGE_DESC_LO_MASK		0xfffff000
>>>> +#define VSI_PAGE_DESC_HI_MASK		GENMASK_ULL(39, 32)
>>>> +#define VSI_PAGE_DESC_HI_SHIFT		(32 - 4)
>>> How does this page-table format relate to the one supported already by
>>> rockchip-iommu.c? From a quick glance, I suspect this is a derivative
>>> and so ideally we'd be able to have a common implementation of the
>>> page-table code which can be used by both of the drivers.
>>>
>>> Similarly:
>>
>> No they comes from different IP providers, this one is from Verisilicon.
>> I agree they looks very similar and my first attempt was to add it into
>> rockchip-iommu code but when doing it I realize that registers addresses
>> where all different so I had to code all the functions twice.
> 
> Understood, and I'm not suggesting to merge the drivers or try to
> consolidate the register layouts. What I _am_ saying is that the
> in-memory page-table format should be factored out in a way that can
> be reused by the two drivers and also that some of the logic (as highlighted
> by vsi_iommu_domain_free()) is practically identical between the drivers
> and should also be shared.

All they really have in common is that they're 2-level formats with 
32-bit PTEs and 10 bits per level (as is tegra-smmu too). The permission 
encodings have some overlap but are not fully equivalent. Crucially, the 
schemes for packing >32-bit PAs into PTEs are incompatibly different, so 
if you're really keen to genericise things to *that* extent, that's what 
Jason's already working on.

As for domain_free, you could argue that it also looks basically the 
same as exynos_iommu_domain_free(), because at the end of the day, 
there's only so many ways to free a 2-level pagetable, and it's at least 
better than what, say, sun50i, omap or tegra are doing (or rather, not 
doing...)

Cheers,
Robin.