[PATCH V2 5/7] dt-bindings: Add xen, dev-domid property description for xen-grant DMA ops

[Stefano Stabellini]

On Thu, 19 May 2022, Oleksandr wrote:
> > On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 5:06 PM Oleksandr <olekstysh at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 18.05.22 17:32, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > On Sat, May 7, 2022 at 7:19 PM Oleksandr Tyshchenko
> > > > <olekstysh at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >    This would mean having a device
> > > > node for the grant-table mechanism that can be referred to using the
> > > > 'iommus'
> > > > phandle property, with the domid as an additional argument.
> > > I assume, you are speaking about something like the following?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > xen_dummy_iommu {
> > >      compatible = "xen,dummy-iommu";
> > >      #iommu-cells = <1>;
> > > };
> > > 
> > > virtio at 3000 {
> > >      compatible = "virtio,mmio";
> > >      reg = <0x3000 0x100>;
> > >      interrupts = <41>;
> > > 
> > >      /* The device is located in Xen domain with ID 1 */
> > >      iommus = <&xen_dummy_iommu 1>;
> > > };
> > Right, that's that's the idea,
> 
> thank you for the confirmation
> 
> 
> 
> >   except I would not call it a 'dummy'.
> >  From the perspective of the DT, this behaves just like an IOMMU,
> > even if the exact mechanism is different from most hardware IOMMU
> > implementations.
> 
> well, agree
> 
> 
> > 
> > > > It does not quite fit the model that Linux currently uses for iommus,
> > > > as that has an allocator for dma_addr_t space
> > > yes (# 3/7 adds grant-table based allocator)
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > , but it would think it's
> > > > conceptually close enough that it makes sense for the binding.
> > > Interesting idea. I am wondering, do we need an extra actions for this
> > > to work in Linux guest (dummy IOMMU driver, etc)?
> > It depends on how closely the guest implementation can be made to
> > resemble a normal iommu. If you do allocate dma_addr_t addresses,
> > it may actually be close enough that you can just turn the grant-table
> > code into a normal iommu driver and change nothing else.
> 
> Unfortunately, I failed to find a way how use grant references at the
> iommu_ops level (I mean to fully pretend that we are an IOMMU driver). I am
> not too familiar with that, so what is written below might be wrong or at
> least not precise.
> 
> The normal IOMMU driver in Linux doesn’t allocate DMA addresses by itself, it
> just maps (IOVA-PA) what was requested to be mapped by the upper layer. The
> DMA address allocation is done by the upper layer (DMA-IOMMU which is the glue
> layer between DMA API and IOMMU API allocates IOVA for PA?). But, all what we
> need here is just to allocate our specific grant-table based DMA addresses
> (DMA address = grant reference + offset in the page), so let’s say we need an
> entity to take a physical address as parameter and return a DMA address (what
> actually commit #3/7 is doing), and that’s all. So working at the dma_ops
> layer we get exactly what we need, with the minimal changes to guest
> infrastructure. In our case the Xen itself acts as an IOMMU.
> 
> Assuming that we want to reuse the IOMMU infrastructure somehow for our needs.
> I think, in that case we will likely need to introduce a new specific IOVA
> allocator (alongside with a generic one) to be hooked up by the DMA-IOMMU
> layer if we run on top of Xen. But, even having the specific IOVA allocator to
> return what we indeed need (DMA address = grant reference + offset in the
> page) we will still need the specific minimal required IOMMU driver to be
> present in the system anyway in order to track the mappings(?) and do nothing
> with them, returning a success (this specific IOMMU driver should have all
> mandatory callbacks implemented).
> 
> I completely agree, it would be really nice to reuse generic IOMMU bindings
> rather than introducing Xen specific property if what we are trying to
> implement in current patch series fits in the usage of "iommus" in Linux
> more-less. But, if we will have to add more complexity/more components to the
> code for the sake of reusing device tree binding, this raises a question
> whether that’s worthwhile.
> 
> Or I really missed something?

I think Arnd was primarily suggesting to reuse the IOMMU Device Tree
bindings, not necessarily the IOMMU drivers framework in Linux (although
that would be an added bonus.)

I know from previous discussions with you that making the grant table
fit in the existing IOMMU drivers model is difficult, but just reusing
the Device Tree bindings seems feasible?