Hello Stefano, > On 2 Feb 2021, at 5:44 pm, Stefano Stabellini <sstabell...@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Feb 2021, Rahul Singh wrote: >> Hello Stefano, >> >>> On 26 Jan 2021, at 10:58 pm, Stefano Stabellini <sstabell...@kernel.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> This series introduces support for the generic SMMU bindings to >>> xen/drivers/passthrough/arm/smmu.c. >>> >>> The last version of the series was >>> https://marc.info/?l=xen-devel&m=159539053406643 >>> >>> I realize that it is late for 4.15 -- I think it is OK if this series >>> goes in afterwards. >> >> I tested the series on the Juno board it is woking fine. >> I found one issue in SMMU driver while testing this series that is not >> related to this series but already existing issue in SMMU driver. >> >> If there are more than one device behind SMMU and they share the same >> Stream-Id, SMMU driver is creating the new SMR entry without checking the >> already configured SMR entry if SMR entry correspond to stream-id is already >> configured. Because of this I observed the stream match conflicts on Juno >> board. >> >> (XEN) smmu: /iommu@7fb30000: Unexpected global fault, this could be serious >> (XEN) smmu: /iommu@7fb30000: GFSR 0x00000004, GFSYNR0 0x00000006, >> GFSYNR1 0x00000000, GFSYNR2 0x00000000 >> >> >> Below two patches is required to be ported to Xen to fix the issue from >> Linux driver. >> >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c?h=linux-5.8.y&id=1f3d5ca43019bff1105838712d55be087d93c0da >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c?h=linux-5.8.y&id=21174240e4f4439bb8ed6c116cdbdc03eba2126e > > > Good catch and thanks for the pointers! Do you have any interest in > backporting these two patches or should I put them on my TODO list?
Yes I am happy to backport these patches to XEN. I will send the patch for review once 4.15 release branch out from master. Regards, Rahul > > Unrelated to who does the job, we should discuss if it makes sense to > try to fix the bug for 4.15. The patches don't seem trivial so I am > tempted to say that it might be best to leave the bug unfixed for 4.15 > and fix it later.
