[RFC PATCH v5 07/10] iommu/riscv: Add domain_alloc_paging_flags for second-stage domain

Jason Gunthorpe jgg at nvidia.com
Wed Oct 28 08:28:08 PDT 2026


> [ ... 22 lines skipped ... ]
> -static struct iommu_domain *riscv_iommu_alloc_paging_domain(struct device *dev)
> +static struct iommu_domain *
> +riscv_iommu_domain_alloc_paging_flags(struct device *dev, u32 flags,
> +				      const struct iommu_user_data *user_data)
>  {
>  	struct pt_iommu_riscv_64_cfg cfg = {};
>  	struct riscv_iommu_domain *domain;
>  	struct riscv_iommu_device *iommu;
>  	int ret;
> +	const u32 supported_flags = IOMMU_HWPT_ALLOC_DIRTY_TRACKING |
> +				    IOMMU_HWPT_ALLOC_NEST_PARENT;
>  
> -	iommu = dev_to_iommu(dev);
> -	if (iommu->caps & RISCV_IOMMU_CAPABILITIES_SV57) {
> -		cfg.common.hw_max_vasz_lg2 = 57;
> -	} else if (iommu->caps & RISCV_IOMMU_CAPABILITIES_SV48) {
> -		cfg.common.hw_max_vasz_lg2 = 48;
> -	} else if (iommu->caps & RISCV_IOMMU_CAPABILITIES_SV39) {
> -		cfg.common.hw_max_vasz_lg2 = 39;
> -	} else {
> -		dev_err(dev, "cannot find supported page table mode\n");
> -		return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
> -	}
> -	cfg.common.hw_max_oasz_lg2 = 56;
> +	if (flags & ~supported_flags)
> +		return ERR_PTR(-EOPNOTSUPP);

This probably isn't needed since the switch checks it?

> [ ... 30 lines skipped ... ]
> +	switch (flags) {
> +	case 0:
> +		cfg.common.features |= BIT(PT_FEAT_SIGN_EXTEND);
> +		if (iommu->caps & RISCV_IOMMU_CAPABILITIES_SV57) {
> +			cfg.common.hw_max_vasz_lg2 = 57;
> +		} else if (iommu->caps & RISCV_IOMMU_CAPABILITIES_SV48) {
> +			cfg.common.hw_max_vasz_lg2 = 48;
> +		} else if (iommu->caps & RISCV_IOMMU_CAPABILITIES_SV39) {
> +			cfg.common.hw_max_vasz_lg2 = 39;
> +		} else {
> +			ret = -ENODEV;
> +			goto err_free;
> +		}
> +		domain->pscid = ida_alloc_range(&riscv_iommu_pscids, 1,
> +						RISCV_IOMMU_MAX_PSCID, GFP_KERNEL);
> +		if (domain->pscid < 0) {
> +			ret = -ENOMEM;
> +			goto err_free;
> +		}
> +		break;

I'd prefer you make functions riscv_iommu_init_domain_s1/s2() to put
this in, it will be clearer

It looks ok otherwise

Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg at nvidia.com>

-- 
Jason



More information about the kvm-riscv mailing list