[PATCH 4/6] iommu/arm-smmu: implement generic DT bindings

[Hiroshi Doyu]

Will Deacon <will.deacon at arm.com> writes:

> [adding Rob, Mark, Arnd, Thierry and Hiroshi]
>
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 01:51:37AM +0100, Mitchel Humpherys wrote:
>> Generic IOMMU device tree bindings were recently added in
>> ["devicetree: Add generic IOMMU device tree bindings"]. Implement the
>> bindings in the ARM SMMU driver.
>> 
>> See Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/iommu.txt for the bindings
>> themselves.
>
> Could you look at moving the parsing code into a separate file please (maybe
> under lib/ ?). That way, other IOMMUs can use the same binding without the
> boilerplate having to be rewritten each time.
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
>> index 63c6707fad..22e25f3172 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
>> @@ -538,25 +538,32 @@ static int insert_smmu_master(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,
>>  	return 0;
>>  }
>>  
>> +struct iommus_entry {
>> +	struct list_head list;
>> +	struct device_node *node;
>> +	u16 streamids[MAX_MASTER_STREAMIDS];
>> +	int num_sids;
>> +};
>> +
>>  static int register_smmu_master(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,
>> -				struct device *dev,
>> -				struct of_phandle_args *masterspec)
>> +				struct iommus_entry *entry)
>>  {
>>  	int i;
>>  	struct arm_smmu_master *master;
>> +	struct device *dev = smmu->dev;
>>  
>> -	master = find_smmu_master(smmu, masterspec->np);
>> +	master = find_smmu_master(smmu, entry->node);
>>  	if (master) {
>>  		dev_err(dev,
>>  			"rejecting multiple registrations for master device %s\n",
>> -			masterspec->np->name);
>> +			entry->node->name);
>>  		return -EBUSY;
>>  	}
>>  
>> -	if (masterspec->args_count > MAX_MASTER_STREAMIDS) {
>> +	if (entry->num_sids > MAX_MASTER_STREAMIDS) {
>>  		dev_err(dev,
>>  			"reached maximum number (%d) of stream IDs for master device %s\n",
>> -			MAX_MASTER_STREAMIDS, masterspec->np->name);
>> +			MAX_MASTER_STREAMIDS, entry->node->name);
>>  		return -ENOSPC;
>>  	}
>>  
>> @@ -564,15 +571,58 @@ static int register_smmu_master(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,
>>  	if (!master)
>>  		return -ENOMEM;
>>  
>> -	master->of_node			= masterspec->np;
>> -	master->cfg.num_streamids	= masterspec->args_count;
>> +	master->of_node			= entry->node;
>> +	master->cfg.num_streamids	= entry->num_sids;
>>  
>>  	for (i = 0; i < master->cfg.num_streamids; ++i)
>> -		master->cfg.streamids[i] = masterspec->args[i];
>> +		master->cfg.streamids[i] = entry->streamids[i];
>>  
>>  	return insert_smmu_master(smmu, master);
>>  }
>>  
>> +static int arm_smmu_parse_iommus_properties(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,
>> +					int *num_masters)
>> +{
>> +	struct of_phandle_args iommuspec;
>> +	struct device_node *dn;
>> +
>> +	for_each_node_with_property(dn, "iommus") {
>> +		int arg_ind = 0;
>> +		struct iommus_entry *entry, *n;
>> +		LIST_HEAD(iommus);

You may want to use the macro, "of_property_for_each_phandle_with_args()"
to parse "iommus=".

  https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/354073/

>> +
>> +		while (!of_parse_phandle_with_args(dn, "iommus", "#iommu-cells",
>> +							arg_ind, &iommuspec)) {
>
> We need to check that the phandle does indeed point at one of our SMMUs
> here, in case we have a system with multiple IOMMU types, all using the
> generic binding.
>
>> +			int i;
>> +
>> +			list_for_each_entry(entry, &iommus, list)
>> +				if (entry->node == dn)
>> +					break;
>
> Oh, yuck, this is really nasty to parse...
>
>> +			if (&entry->list == &iommus) {
>
> Where is entry initialised the first time around?
>
>> +				entry = devm_kzalloc(smmu->dev, sizeof(*entry),
>> +						GFP_KERNEL);
>> +				if (!entry)
>> +					return -ENOMEM;
>
> You need to of_node_put the guys you've got back from the phandle parsing
> code.
>
>> +				entry->node = dn;
>> +				list_add(&entry->list, &iommus);
>> +			}
>> +			entry->num_sids = iommuspec.args_count;
>> +			for (i = 0; i < entry->num_sids; ++i)
>> +				entry->streamids[i] = iommuspec.args[i];
>> +			arg_ind++;
>
> Isn't this defined by #iommu-cells?
>
>> +		}
>> +
>> +		list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, n, &iommus, list) {
>
> Why the _safe variant? This is a local list, right?
>
> Will