Re: [PATCH v8 1/3] iommu/arm-smmu: add NVIDIA implementation for dual ARM MMU-500 usage
From: Robin Murphy
Date: Tue Jun 30 2020 - 10:53:23 EST
On 2020-06-30 09:19, Jon Hunter wrote:
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"))
Nit: please use "np" like all the surrounding code does.
+ 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.
I don't understand the "When" there - the driver has always supported
multiple independent SMMUs, and it's not something that could be
configured out or otherwise disabled. Plus I really don't see why you
would ever want to force unrelated SMMUs to be programmed together -
beyond the TLB thing mentioned it would also waste precious context bank
resources and might lead to weird device grouping via false stream ID
aliasing, with no obvious upside at all.
+ */
+#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?
This is the same logic as the main driver (see 8513c8930069) - the sync
is expected to complete relatively quickly, hence why we have the inner
spin loop to avoid the delay entirely in the typical case, and the
longer it's taking, the more likely it is that something's wrong and it
will never complete anyway. Realistically, a heavily loaded SMMU at a
modest clock rate might take us through a couple of iterations of the
outer loop, but beyond that we're pretty much just killing time until we
declare it wedged and give up, and by then there's not much point in
burning power frantically hamering on the interconnect.
+ 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.
But then how do you get back to struct nvidia_smmu given just a pointer
to struct arm_smmu_device?
I'll admit my quickly-hacked-up design for post-hoc subclassing isn't
the prettiest, but in fairness it was only ever intended for a couple of
exceptional cases. I guess it would be equally possible to wrap struct
arm_smmu_impl, and container_of() back to the private data from
smmu->impl itself, which avoids the minor weirdness of reassigning the
smmu pointer in the middle of probing, but then you'd have to store the
function pointers in writeable memory, which in principle might make the
integrity folks pull a sad face.
The aim was to avoid the non-architectural stuff cluttering up the main
driver as far as possible, which is why I preferred a subclassing
approach over cramming more random pointers into struct arm_smmu_device.
Not to say it can't be changed if you've got a really solid idea for an
alternative...
Robin.
+
+ 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