On 05/03/18 15:00, Nipun Gupta wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Murphy [mailto:robin.mur...@arm.com]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 20:23
To: Nipun Gupta <nipun.gu...@nxp.com>; will.dea...@arm.com;
mark.rutl...@arm.com; catalin.mari...@arm.com
Cc: io...@lists.linux-foundation.org; robh...@kernel.org; h...@lst.de;
m.szyprow...@samsung.com; gre...@linuxfoundation.org; j...@8bytes.org;
Leo Li <leoyang...@nxp.com>; shawn...@kernel.org; linux-
ker...@vger.kernel.org; devicet...@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-
ker...@lists.infradead.org; linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org; Bharat Bhushan
<bharat.bhus...@nxp.com>; stuyo...@gmail.com; Laurentiu Tudor
<laurentiu.tu...@nxp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] Docs: dt: add fsl-mc iommu-parent device-tree binding
On 05/03/18 14:29, Nipun Gupta wrote:
The existing IOMMU bindings cannot be used to specify the relationship
between fsl-mc devices and IOMMUs. This patch adds a binding for
mapping fsl-mc devices to IOMMUs, using a new iommu-parent property.
Given that allowing "msi-parent" for #msi-cells > 1 is merely a
backward-compatibility bodge full of hard-coded assumptions, why would
we want to knowingly introduce a similarly unpleasant equivalent for
IOMMUs? What's wrong with "iommu-map"?
Hi Robin,
With 'msi-parent' the property is fixed up to have msi-map. In this case there
is
no fixup required and simple 'iommu-parent' property can be used, with MC bus
itself providing the stream-id's (in the code execution via FW).
We can also use the iommu-map property similar to PCI, which will require u-boot
fixup. But then it leads to little bit complications of u-boot - kernel
compatibility.
What needs fixing up? With a stream-map-mask in place to ignore the
upper Stream ID bits, you just need:
iommu-map = <0 &smmu 0 0x80>;
to say that the lower bits of the ICID value map directly to the lower
bits of the Stream ID value - that's the same fixed property of the
hardware that you're wanting to assume in iommu-parent.
If you suggest we can re-use the iommu-map property. What is your opinion?
I think it makes a lot more sense to directly use the property which
already exists, than to introduce a new one to merely assume one
hard-coded value of the existing one. Extending msi-parent to msi-map
was a case of "oops, it turns out we need more flexibility here"; for
the case of iommu-map I can't imagine any justification for saying
"oops, we need less flexibility here" (saving 9 whole bytes in the DT
really is irrelevant).
Robin.
