Re: [PATCH 03/11] dt-bindings: Add RISC-V IOMMU bindings

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 09:28:54AM +0800, Zong Li wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 10:57 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 10:42:47AM +0800, Zong Li wrote:
> >
> > > Perhaps this question could be related to the scenarios in which
> > > devices wish to be in bypass mode when the IOMMU is in translation
> > > mode, and why IOMMU defines/supports this case. Currently, I could
> > > envision a scenario where a device is already connected to the IOMMU
> > > in hardware, but it is not functioning correctly, or there are
> > > performance impacts. If modifying the hardware is not feasible, a
> > > default configuration that allows bypass mode could be provided as a
> > > solution. There might be other scenarios that I might have overlooked.
> > > It seems to me since IOMMU supports this configuration, it would be
> > > advantageous to have an approach to achieve it, and DT might be a
> > > flexible way.
> >
> > So far we've taken the approach that broken hardware is quirked in the
> > kernel by matching OF compatible string pattners. This is HW that is
> > completely broken and the IOMMU doesn't work at all for it.
> >
> > HW that is slow or whatever is not quirked and this is an admin policy
> > choice where the system should land on the security/performance
> > spectrum.
> >
> > So I'm not sure adding DT makes sense here.
> >
> 
> Hi Jason,
> Sorry for being late here, I hadn't noticed this reply earlier. The
> approach seems to address the situation. Could you kindly provide
> information about the location of the patches? I was wondering about
> further details regarding this particular implementation. Thanks

There are a couple versions, eg  
 arm_smmu_def_domain_type()
 qcom_smmu_def_domain_type()

Jason