lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] RM64: dts: ls208xa: Add iommu-map property for pci
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 11:49:37AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> [Fixing Mark's address...]

Thanks!

> On 31/08/17 11:41, Bharat Bhushan wrote:
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Marc Zyngier [mailto:marc.zyngier@arm.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 3:02 PM
> >> To: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@nxp.com>; robh+dt@kernel.org;
> >> ark.rutland@arm.com; will.deacon@arm.com; oss@buserror.net; Gang Liu
> >> <gang.liu@nxp.com>; devicetree@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-
> >> kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> >> catalin.marinas@arm.com
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] RM64: dts: ls208xa: Add iommu-map property for pci
> >>
> >> On 31/08/17 10:23, Bharat Bhushan wrote:
> >>> This patch adds iommu-map property for PCIe, which enables SMMU for
> >>> these devices on LS208xA devices.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <Bharat.Bhushan@nxp.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls208xa.dtsi | 4 ++++
> >>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls208xa.dtsi
> >>> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls208xa.dtsi
> >>> index 94cdd30..67cf605 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls208xa.dtsi
> >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls208xa.dtsi
> >>> @@ -606,6 +606,7 @@
> >>> num-lanes = <4>;
> >>> bus-range = <0x0 0xff>;
> >>> msi-parent = <&its>;
> >>> + iommu-map = <0 &smmu 0 1>; /* This is fixed-up by
> >> u-boot */
> >>
> >> What does this do when your version of u-boot doesn't fill this in for you?
> >
> > Good question, frankly I have not thought of this case before.
> > But if we pass length = 0 in above property then no fixup happen with
> > happen with older u-boot. In this case of_iommu_configure() will
> > return NULL iommu-ops and it switch to swio-tlb. Will that work?
> I really don't like this. You rely on having invalid data in the DT, and
> that seems just wrong.

Indeed.

Either the property should be valid (and correctly representing the HW),
or it shouldn't be present. Relying on kernel implementation details is
*not* OK.

Thanks,
Mark.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-31 13:32    [W:0.083 / U:1.704 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site