[PATCH] iommu/arm-smmu: don't touch the secure STLBIALL register

[Will Deacon]

On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 05:52:46PM +0000, Mitchel Humpherys wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07 2015 at 02:13:00 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon at arm.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 11:30:49PM +0000, Mitchel Humpherys wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jan 06 2015 at 02:35:28 PM, Rob Herring <robherring2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Mitchel Humpherys
> >> > <mitchelh at codeaurora.org> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, Jan 06 2015 at 06:15:07 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon at arm.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>      /* Invalidate the TLB, just in case */
> >> >>>> -    writel_relaxed(0, gr0_base + ARM_SMMU_GR0_STLBIALL);
> >> >>>>      writel_relaxed(0, gr0_base + ARM_SMMU_GR0_TLBIALLH);
> >> >>>>      writel_relaxed(0, gr0_base + ARM_SMMU_GR0_TLBIALLNSNH);
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I was slightly worried that this would break the Calxeda implementation
> >> >>> with ARM_SMMU_OPT_SECURE_CFG_ACCESS, but actually these registers aren't
> >> >>> even aliased there so I think there's a bigger bug for them.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Anyway, given that their hardware has gone the way of the dodo, I'll take
> >> >>> the patch as-is unless you have any further comments?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Will
> >> >>
> >> >> Yeah I agree that this shouldn't affect the (now defunct) Calxeda
> >> >> implementation.  I've tested this on some hardware here and we crash
> >> >> when we touch that register since it's secure-only (not banked, as you
> >> >> mentioned).
> >> >
> >> > It's not quite dead:
> >> >
> >> > http://www.eweek.com/servers/calxedas-arm-based-server-chips-re-emerge-with-new-company.html
> >> >
> >> > But AFAIK, production systems don't enable the SMMU, but someone could
> >> > still want to at some point. A note in the commit log here would be
> >> > nice so it gets recorded.
> >> 
> >> Actually, as Will mentioned this shouldn't affect Calxeda since this
> >> isn't a banked register.  I think the confusion is from the `S' prefix
> >> in the spec.  The /s/ (lower-case, italic) prefix means that there are
> >> secure and non-secure versions of the register, while the S (upper-case,
> >> non-italic) prefix means "this is a secure register" (which may or may
> >> not have a banked non-secure counterpart).  This particular register is
> >> an S-only register (there's no non-secure counterpart) so the Calxeda
> >> workaround isn't relevant here, AFAICT.
> >
> > Right, but I think the problem is that we go and write zero to
> > ARM_SMMU_GR0_TLBIALLH and ARM_SMMU_GR0_TLBIALLNSNH at what *would be* their
> > non-secure aliases for the secure side (i.e. + 0x400).
> 
> This sounds like a separate problem.  Since these GR0 registers aren't
> banked the calxeda workaround doesn't work...  SMMU_STLBIALL, on the
> other hand, is not only not banked but it's also "secure only" so I
> don't think we have any business touching it ever.
> 
> > If would be better to check for the ARM_SMMU_OPT_SECURE_CFG_ACCESS feature
> > and, if it's set then zero ARM_SMMU_GR0_STLBIALL at the correct address
> > otherwise do the ARM_SMMU_GR0_TLBIALLH and ARM_SMMU_GR0_TLBIALLNSNH.
> 
> I'm confused.  The problem I'm addressing here is that we're touching a
> register that's marked as "secure only", which causes our system to
> crash.  Why would we ever want to touch a secure only register, calxeda
> workaround or not?

Because I think the way the SMMU is wired for Calxeda is that the CPU can
only see the secure side of the register interface, so the only way to nuke
the whole TLB would be to use ARM_SMMU_GR0_STLBIALL.

Will