Re: [PATCH v8 1/3] iommu/arm-smmu: add NVIDIA implementation for dual ARM MMU-500 usage

[Jon Hunter]

On 30/06/2020 01:10, Krishna Reddy wrote:
> NVIDIA's Tegra194 SoC uses two ARM MMU-500s together to interleave
> IOVA accesses across them.
> Add NVIDIA implementation for dual ARM MMU-500s and add new compatible
> string for Tegra194 SoC SMMU topology.

There is no description here of the 3rd SMMU that you mention below.
I think that we should describe the full picture here.
 
> Signed-off-by: Krishna Reddy <vdumpa@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  MAINTAINERS                     |   2 +
>  drivers/iommu/Makefile          |   2 +-
>  drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-impl.c   |   3 +
>  drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-nvidia.c | 196 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.h        |   1 +
>  5 files changed, 203 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>  create mode 100644 drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-nvidia.c
> 
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index 7b5ffd646c6b9..64c37dbdd4426 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -16808,8 +16808,10 @@ F:	drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-tegra.c
>  
>  TEGRA IOMMU DRIVERS
>  M:	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx>
> +R:	Krishna Reddy <vdumpa@xxxxxxxxxx>
>  L:	linux-tegra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>  S:	Supported
> +F:	drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-nvidia.c
>  F:	drivers/iommu/tegra*
>  
>  TEGRA KBC DRIVER
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/Makefile b/drivers/iommu/Makefile
> index 342190196dfb0..2b8203db73ec3 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/Makefile
> @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_AMD_IOMMU) += amd/iommu.o amd/init.o amd/quirks.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_AMD_IOMMU_DEBUGFS) += amd/debugfs.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_AMD_IOMMU_V2) += amd/iommu_v2.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_SMMU) += arm_smmu.o
> -arm_smmu-objs += arm-smmu.o arm-smmu-impl.o arm-smmu-qcom.o
> +arm_smmu-objs += arm-smmu.o arm-smmu-impl.o arm-smmu-nvidia.o arm-smmu-qcom.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_SMMU_V3) += arm-smmu-v3.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_DMAR_TABLE) += intel/dmar.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_INTEL_IOMMU) += intel/iommu.o intel/pasid.o
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-impl.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-impl.c
> index c75b9d957b702..70f7318017617 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-impl.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-impl.c
> @@ -171,6 +171,9 @@ struct arm_smmu_device *arm_smmu_impl_init(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>  	if (of_property_read_bool(np, "calxeda,smmu-secure-config-access"))
>  		smmu->impl = &calxeda_impl;
>  
> +	if (of_device_is_compatible(smmu->dev->of_node, "nvidia,tegra194-smmu"))
> +		return nvidia_smmu_impl_init(smmu);
> +
>  	if (of_device_is_compatible(np, "qcom,sdm845-smmu-500") ||
>  	    of_device_is_compatible(np, "qcom,sc7180-smmu-500"))
>  		return qcom_smmu_impl_init(smmu);
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-nvidia.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-nvidia.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000..1124f0ac1823a
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-nvidia.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,196 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> +// NVIDIA ARM SMMU v2 implementation quirks
> +// Copyright (C) 2019-2020 NVIDIA CORPORATION.  All rights reserved.
> +
> +#include <linux/bitfield.h>
> +#include <linux/delay.h>
> +#include <linux/of.h>
> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> +#include <linux/slab.h>
> +
> +#include "arm-smmu.h"
> +
> +/*
> + * Tegra194 has three ARM MMU-500 Instances.
> + * Two of them are used together for interleaved IOVA accesses and
> + * used by non-isochronous HW devices for SMMU translations.
> + * Third one is used for SMMU translations from isochronous HW devices.
> + * It is possible to use this implementation to program either
> + * all three or two of the instances identically as desired through
> + * DT node.
> + *
> + * Programming all the three instances identically comes with redundant TLB
> + * invalidations as all three never need to be TLB invalidated for a HW device.
> + *
> + * When Linux kernel supports multiple SMMU devices, the SMMU device used for
> + * isochornous HW devices should be added as a separate ARM MMU-500 device
> + * in DT and be programmed independently for efficient TLB invalidates.
> + */
> +#define MAX_SMMU_INSTANCES 3
> +
> +#define TLB_LOOP_TIMEOUT_IN_US		1000000	/* 1s! */
> +#define TLB_SPIN_COUNT			10
> +
> +struct nvidia_smmu {
> +	struct arm_smmu_device	smmu;
> +	unsigned int		num_inst;
> +	void __iomem		*bases[MAX_SMMU_INSTANCES];
> +};
> +
> +static inline struct nvidia_smmu *to_nvidia_smmu(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> +{
> +	return container_of(smmu, struct nvidia_smmu, smmu);
> +}
> +
> +static inline void __iomem *nvidia_smmu_page(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,
> +			       unsigned int inst, int page)

If you run checkpatch --strict on these you will get a lot of ...

CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis
#116: FILE: drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-nvidia.c:46:
+static inline void __iomem *nvidia_smmu_page(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,
+			       unsigned int inst, int page)

We should fix these.

> +{
> +	struct nvidia_smmu *nvidia_smmu = to_nvidia_smmu(smmu);
> +
> +	if (!nvidia_smmu->bases[0])
> +		nvidia_smmu->bases[0] = smmu->base;
> +
> +	return nvidia_smmu->bases[inst] + (page << smmu->pgshift);
> +}
> +
> +static u32 nvidia_smmu_read_reg(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,
> +			      int page, int offset)
> +{
> +	void __iomem *reg = nvidia_smmu_page(smmu, 0, page) + offset;
> +
> +	return readl_relaxed(reg);
> +}
> +
> +static void nvidia_smmu_write_reg(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,
> +			    int page, int offset, u32 val)
> +{
> +	unsigned int i;
> +	struct nvidia_smmu *nvidia_smmu = to_nvidia_smmu(smmu);
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < nvidia_smmu->num_inst; i++) {
> +		void __iomem *reg = nvidia_smmu_page(smmu, i, page) + offset;

Personally, I would declare 'reg' outside of the loop as I feel it will make
the code cleaner and easier to read.

> +
> +		writel_relaxed(val, reg);
> +	}
> +}
> +
> +static u64 nvidia_smmu_read_reg64(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,
> +				int page, int offset)
> +{
> +	void __iomem *reg = nvidia_smmu_page(smmu, 0, page) + offset;
> +
> +	return readq_relaxed(reg);
> +}
> +
> +static void nvidia_smmu_write_reg64(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,
> +				  int page, int offset, u64 val)
> +{
> +	unsigned int i;
> +	struct nvidia_smmu *nvidia_smmu = to_nvidia_smmu(smmu);
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < nvidia_smmu->num_inst; i++) {
> +		void __iomem *reg = nvidia_smmu_page(smmu, i, page) + offset;
> +
> +		writeq_relaxed(val, reg);
> +	}
> +}
> +
> +static void nvidia_smmu_tlb_sync(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, int page,
> +			   int sync, int status)
> +{
> +	unsigned int delay;
> +
> +	arm_smmu_writel(smmu, page, sync, 0);
> +
> +	for (delay = 1; delay < TLB_LOOP_TIMEOUT_IN_US; delay *= 2) {

So we are doubling the delay every time? Is this better than just using
the same on each loop? 

> +		unsigned int spin_cnt;
> +
> +		for (spin_cnt = TLB_SPIN_COUNT; spin_cnt > 0; spin_cnt--) {
> +			u32 val = 0;
> +			unsigned int i;
> +			struct nvidia_smmu *nvidia_smmu = to_nvidia_smmu(smmu);

Why not do this once at the beginning of the function? 

> +
> +			for (i = 0; i < nvidia_smmu->num_inst; i++) {
> +				void __iomem *reg =
> +					nvidia_smmu_page(smmu, i, page) + status;
> +
> +				val |= readl_relaxed(reg);
> +			}
> +
> +			if (!(val & ARM_SMMU_sTLBGSTATUS_GSACTIVE))
> +				return;
> +
> +			cpu_relax();
> +		}
> +
> +		udelay(delay);
> +	}
> +
> +	dev_err_ratelimited(smmu->dev,
> +			    "TLB sync timed out -- SMMU may be deadlocked\n");
> +}
> +
> +static int nvidia_smmu_reset(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> +{
> +	unsigned int i;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < to_nvidia_smmu(smmu)->num_inst; i++) {
> +		u32 val;
> +		void __iomem *reg = nvidia_smmu_page(smmu, i, ARM_SMMU_GR0) +
> +				    ARM_SMMU_GR0_sGFSR;

I feel that declaring variables here clutters the code.
 
> +
> +		/* clear global FSR */
> +		val = readl_relaxed(reg);
> +		writel_relaxed(val, reg);
> +	}
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static const struct arm_smmu_impl nvidia_smmu_impl = {
> +	.read_reg = nvidia_smmu_read_reg,
> +	.write_reg = nvidia_smmu_write_reg,
> +	.read_reg64 = nvidia_smmu_read_reg64,
> +	.write_reg64 = nvidia_smmu_write_reg64,
> +	.reset = nvidia_smmu_reset,
> +	.tlb_sync = nvidia_smmu_tlb_sync,
> +};
> +
> +struct arm_smmu_device *nvidia_smmu_impl_init(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> +{
> +	unsigned int i;
> +	struct nvidia_smmu *nvidia_smmu;
> +	struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(smmu->dev);
> +
> +	nvidia_smmu = devm_kzalloc(smmu->dev, sizeof(*nvidia_smmu), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!nvidia_smmu)
> +		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> +
> +	nvidia_smmu->smmu = *smmu;
> +	/* Instance 0 is ioremapped by arm-smmu.c after this function returns */
> +	nvidia_smmu->num_inst = 1;
> +
> +	for (i = 1; i < MAX_SMMU_INSTANCES; i++) {
> +		struct resource *res;
> +
> +		res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, i);
> +		if (!res)
> +			break;
> +
> +		nvidia_smmu->bases[i] = devm_ioremap_resource(smmu->dev, res);
> +		if (IS_ERR(nvidia_smmu->bases[i]))
> +			return ERR_CAST(nvidia_smmu->bases[i]);
> +
> +		nvidia_smmu->num_inst++;
> +	}
> +
> +	nvidia_smmu->smmu.impl = &nvidia_smmu_impl;
> +	/*
> +	 * Free the arm_smmu_device struct allocated in arm-smmu.c.
> +	 * Once this function returns, arm-smmu.c would use arm_smmu_device
> +	 * allocated as part of nvidia_smmu struct.
> +	 */
> +	devm_kfree(smmu->dev, smmu);

Why don't we just store the pointer of the smmu struct passed to this function
in the nvidia_smmu struct and then we do not need to free this here. In other
words make ...

 struct nvidia_smmu {
	struct arm_smmu_device	*smmu;
	unsigned int		num_inst;
	void __iomem		*bases[MAX_SMMU_INSTANCES];
 };  

This seems more appropriate, than copying the struct and freeing memory
allocated else-where.
 
> +
> +	return &nvidia_smmu->smmu;
> +}
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.h b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.h
> index d172c024be618..8cf1511ed9874 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.h
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.h
> @@ -450,6 +450,7 @@ static inline void arm_smmu_writeq(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, int page,
>  	arm_smmu_writeq((s), ARM_SMMU_CB((s), (n)), (o), (v))
>  
>  struct arm_smmu_device *arm_smmu_impl_init(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu);
> +struct arm_smmu_device *nvidia_smmu_impl_init(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu);
>  struct arm_smmu_device *qcom_smmu_impl_init(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu);
>  
>  int arm_mmu500_reset(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu);
> 

Cheers
Jon

-- 
nvpublic