[PATCH v2 4/5] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Install bypass STEs for IOMMU_DOMAIN_IDENTITY domains

[Robin Murphy]

On 21/03/17 17:08, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Robin,
> 
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 06:19:48PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> On 16/03/17 16:24, Nate Watterson wrote:
>>> On 2017-03-10 15:49, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>> In preparation for allowing the default domain type to be overridden,
>>>> this patch adds support for IOMMU_DOMAIN_IDENTITY domains to the
>>>> ARM SMMUv3 driver.
>>>>
>>>> An identity domain is created by placing the corresponding stream table
>>>> entries into "bypass" mode, which allows transactions to flow through
>>>> the SMMU without any translation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What about masters that require SMMU intervention to override their
>>> native memory attributes to make them consistent with the CCA (acpi)
>>> or dma-coherent (dt) values specified in FW?
>>
>> Well, we've already broken them ;) My interpretation of "dma-coherent"
>> is as the equivalent of DACS=1,CPM=1, i.e. not dependent on SMMU
>> override. For the CCA=1,DACS=0 case (I'm going to pretend the DT
>> equivalent will never exist...) the first problem to solve is how to
>> inherit the appropriate configuration from the firmware, because right
>> now we're not even pretending to support that.
> 
> Indeed, and that would need to be added as a separate patch series when
> the need arises.
> 
>>>>      /* Nuke the existing STE_0 value, as we're going to rewrite it */
>>>> -    val = ste->valid ? STRTAB_STE_0_V : 0;
>>>> +    val = STRTAB_STE_0_V;
>>>> +
>>>> +    /* Bypass/fault */
>>>> +    if (!ste->assigned || !(ste->s1_cfg || ste->s2_cfg)) {
>>>> +        if (!ste->assigned && disable_bypass)
>>
>> ...yuck. After about 5 minutes of staring at that, I've convinced myself
>> that it would make much more sense to always clear the strtab_ent
>> configs on detach, such that you never need the outer !ste->assigned
>> check here...
> 
> I was deliberately keeping the strtab_ent intact in case we ever grow
> support for nested translation, where we might well want to detach a
> stage 1 but keep the stage 2 installed. I don't think the code is that
> bad, so I'd like to leave it like it is for now.

Sure, it would certainly be more awkward to recreate this logic from
scratch in future if we need it again. I suggested the cleanup since it
looked like an oversight, but if it's a conscious decision then that's
fine by me.

Robin.

> 
> Will
>