[PATCHv4 2/7] driver/core: Populate IOMMU'able devices in order

[Will Deacon]

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 04:06:10PM +0000, Hiroshi Doyu wrote:
> Will Deacon <will.deacon at arm.com> wrote @ Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:38:04 +0100:
> 
> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:34:20PM +0000, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > > SMMU:
> > >     smmu: smmu at xxxxxx {
> > >         #smmu-cells = <1>;
> > >     }
> > > 
> > > Affected device:
> > >     smmus = <&smmu 1>;
> > >     (perhaps with smmu-names too)
> > > 
> > > That would allow the DT to represent basically arbitrary HW configurations.
> > > 
> > > The implementation of this patch would then be almost as trivial; you'd
> > > just need to walk the smmus property to find each phandle in turn, just
> > > like any other phandle+specifier property, and validate that the SMMU
> > > driver was already probe()d for each.
> > 
> > There are a few problems with that:
> > 
> >   1.) It assumes all devices sharing an SMMU have the same number of
> >       "smmu cells"
> 
> This can be solved with introducing the fixed size of bitmap. The size
> of bitmap can be fixed even per SoC. In tegra we used 64(2 cells)
> which I expect at most.

That really doesn't sound like a good idea where you have bridges (like a
PCIe host controller) which could have a significant chunk of StreamID
space. You'd also need to pad everything out with some dummy IDs for parsing
purposes. Yuck!

> >   2.) It moves SMMU-specific data out to the device, which makes it
> >       impossible to describe more complicated topologies where IDs can be
> >       remapped/remastered, potentially by multiple SMMUs and/or bus bridges.
> > 
> > When writing the binding for the ARM SMMU driver, I originally started with
> > something similar to what you're suggesting, but was later forced down a
> > different route when I realised what sort of systems were being built.
> > 
> > We will have similar problems for PCIe RIDs and GIC DIDs (I spoke about this
> > at the ARM mini-summit). They are not fixed across the system: they
> > originate from a device, but can change as they traverse the system
> > topology.
> 
> Is there any chance to overwrite SMMU driver specific params during
> setting up topologies?

Not sure I understand what you're getting at here. Could you elaborate
please?

Will