On 12.01.21 11:41, Rahul Singh wrote:
Hi Rahul
-static int arm_smmu_of_xlate(struct device *dev, struct of_phandle_args
*args)
+static int arm_smmu_dt_xlate(struct device *dev,
+ const struct dt_phandle_args *args)
{
- return iommu_fwspec_add_ids(dev, args->args, 1);
+ int ret;
+ struct iommu_fwspec *fwspec = dev_iommu_fwspec_get(dev);
Please bear in mind I am not familiar with the SMMU, but don't we need to
perform a some kind
of sanity check of passed DT IOMMU specifier here?
I checked the code follow we will never hit the dt_xlate without IOMMU
specifier but anyway I will add the sanity check.
By sanity check I meant to make sure that device ID (stream ID) is in
allowed range (of course, if this is relevant for SMMU).
For example, for IPMMU-VMSA we have a check that device ID (uTLB) is
less than max uTLB number.
+
+static int arm_smmu_iommu_xen_domain_init(struct domain *d)
+{
+ struct arm_smmu_xen_domain *xen_domain;
+
+ xen_domain = xzalloc(struct arm_smmu_xen_domain);
+ if (!xen_domain)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
+ spin_lock_init(&xen_domain->lock);
+ INIT_LIST_HEAD(&xen_domain->contexts);
+
+ dom_iommu(d)->arch.priv = xen_domain;
+ return 0;
+
+}
+
+static void __hwdom_init arm_smmu_iommu_hwdom_init(struct domain *d)
+{
Both SMMUv2 and IPMMU perform some actions here. Any reason we don't need to do
the same here?
/* Set to false options not supported on ARM. */
if ( iommu_hwdom_inclusive )
printk(XENLOG_WARNING
"map-inclusive dom0-iommu option is not supported on ARM\n");
iommu_hwdom_inclusive = false;
if ( iommu_hwdom_reserved == 1 )
printk(XENLOG_WARNING
"map-reserved dom0-iommu option is not supported on ARM\n");
iommu_hwdom_reserved = 0;
arch_iommu_hwdom_init(d);
I will add the above code for SMMUv3 also.
Great.
I was thinking about it, this is the third IOMMU driver on Arm which has
to disable the _same_ unsupported options, probably this code wants to
be folded in arch_iommu_hwdom_init() to avoid duplication?
--
Regards,
Oleksandr Tyshchenko
