Re: [PATCH 11/13] dtb: amd: Add PCIe SMMU device tree node
From: Eric Auger
Date: Wed Mar 30 2016 - 11:58:23 EST
On 03/30/2016 05:45 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Eric,
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 05:37:27PM +0200, Eric Auger wrote:
>> On 01/28/2016 03:27 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 03:17:33PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>>> On Thursday 28 January 2016 12:20:58 Robin Murphy wrote:
>>>>> Any IDs specified here would only apply to DMA by the "platform device"
>>>>> side of the host controller itself (as would an equivalent "iommus"
>>>>> property on pcie0 once I finish the SMMUv2 generic binding support I'm
>>>>> working on). In terms of PCI devices, the "mmu-masters" property is
>>>>> overloaded such that only its existence matters, to identify that there
>>>>> _is_ a relationship between the SMMU and the PCI bus(es) behind that
>>>>> host controller.
>>>> I wasn't aware that this was actually still specified. I had hoped
>>>> we were getting rid of mmu-masters before anyone actually started
>>>> using it, but now I see it in ns2.dtsi and fsl-ls2080a.dtsi.
>>>> Does anyone know what happened to the plan to use the iommu DT binding
>>>> for the ARM SMMU instead? Do we now have to support both ways indefinitely?
>>> We always did -- Seattle used the mmu-masters binding before the generic
>>> binding even existed. Robin has been working on patches to get of_xlate
>>> up and running, but it got held up by Laurent's series which didn't end
>>> up going anywhere.
>> Up to now I have used the PCI smmu description as described in Suravee's
>> patch and this does not work anymore with 4.6-rc1 since the default
>> domain was introduced. So now I see 2 SMRs matching a single streamid
>> (in my case 256, one steming from the "platform device" side of the host
>> controller and one steming from the PCI device) and this causes SMCF
>> (stream match conflict fault). So PCIe PF does not work.
> Sorry about that, it wasn't intentional. In fact, I wrote commit
> cbf8277ef456 ("iommu/arm-smmu: Treat IOMMU_DOMAIN_DMA as bypass for now")
> specifically to avoid this breakage, after seeing it myself with VFIO
> and an S2CR-based configuration. It looks like the check just needs moving
> higher up (i.e. before we initialise the SMRs).
> Does that fix it for you?
Yes this fixes the issue for me, thanks! I guess you will send that patch?
So eventually what is the right way to describe the smmu-masters (~
future of that patch)?