lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 6/6] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Avoid ILLEGAL setting of STE.S1STALLD and CD.S
Date
Hi Will,

On 2017/9/13 11:06, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 01:54:19PM +0100, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
>> On 31/08/17 09:20, Yisheng Xie wrote:
>>> It is ILLEGAL to set STE.S1STALLD if STALL_MODEL is not 0b00, which
>>> means we should not disable stall mode if stall/terminate mode is not
>>> configuable.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, it is also ILLEGAL when STALL_MODEL==0b10 && CD.S==0 which
>>> means if stall mode is force we should always set CD.S.
>>>
>>> This patch add ARM_SMMU_FEAT_TERMINATE feature bit for smmu, and use
>>> TERMINATE feature checking to ensue above ILLEGAL cases from happening.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@huawei.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++------
>>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
>>> index dbda2eb..0745522 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
>>> @@ -55,6 +55,7 @@
>>> #define IDR0_STALL_MODEL_SHIFT 24
>>> #define IDR0_STALL_MODEL_MASK 0x3
>>> #define IDR0_STALL_MODEL_STALL (0 << IDR0_STALL_MODEL_SHIFT)
>>> +#define IDR0_STALL_MODEL_NS (1 << IDR0_STALL_MODEL_SHIFT)
>>> #define IDR0_STALL_MODEL_FORCE (2 << IDR0_STALL_MODEL_SHIFT)
>>> #define IDR0_TTENDIAN_SHIFT 21
>>> #define IDR0_TTENDIAN_MASK 0x3
>>> @@ -766,6 +767,7 @@ struct arm_smmu_device {
>>> #define ARM_SMMU_FEAT_SVM (1 << 15)
>>> #define ARM_SMMU_FEAT_HA (1 << 16)
>>> #define ARM_SMMU_FEAT_HD (1 << 17)
>>> +#define ARM_SMMU_FEAT_TERMINATE (1 << 18)
>>
>> I'd rather introduce something like "ARM_SMMU_FEAT_STALL_FORCE" instead.
>> Terminate model has another meaning, and is defined by a different bit in
>> IDR0.
>
> Yes. What we need to do is:
>
> - If STALL_MODEL is 0b00, then set S1STALLD

Yes, and within this case, we can only set the S1STALLD for masters which can
not stall in the future?

> - If STALL_MODEL is 0b01, then we're ok (in future, avoiding trying to use
> stalls, even for masters that claim to support it)
> - If STALL_MODEL is 0b10, then force all PCI devices and any platform
> devices that don't claim to support stalls into bypass (depending on
> disable_bypass).
>
> Reasonable? We could actually knock up a fix for mainline to do most of
> this already.
This sound reasonable to me. And I can be a volunteer to prepare this patch if
Jean-Philippe do not oppose :)

Thanks
Yisheng Xie

>
> Will
>
> .
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-13 12:14    [W:0.073 / U:2.844 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site