Thread (40 messages) 40 messages, 6 authors, 2021-07-05

Re: [PATCH v5 5/8] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add bypass flag to arm_smmu_write_strtab_ent()

From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Date: 2021-06-14 10:24:41
Also in: linux-arm-kernel, linux-iommu

On 2021-05-24 12:02, Shameer Kolothum wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
By default, disable_bypass is set and any dev without an iommu domain
installs STE with CFG_ABORT during arm_smmu_init_bypass_stes(). Introduce
a "bypass" flag to arm_smmu_write_strtab_ent() so that we can force it to
install CFG_BYPASS STE for specific SIDs. This will be useful in follow
up patch to install bypass for IORT RMR SIDs.

Signed-off-by: Shameer Kolothum <redacted>
---
  drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c | 8 ++++----
  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
index 754bad6092c1..f9195b740f48 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
@@ -1174,7 +1174,7 @@ static void arm_smmu_sync_ste_for_sid(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, u32 sid)
  }
  
  static void arm_smmu_write_strtab_ent(struct arm_smmu_master *master, u32 sid,
-				      __le64 *dst)
+				      __le64 *dst, bool bypass)
  {
  	/*
  	 * This is hideously complicated, but we only really care about
@@ -1245,7 +1245,7 @@ static void arm_smmu_write_strtab_ent(struct arm_smmu_master *master, u32 sid,
  
  	/* Bypass/fault */
  	if (!smmu_domain || !(s1_cfg || s2_cfg)) {
-		if (!smmu_domain && disable_bypass)
+		if (!smmu_domain && disable_bypass && !bypass)
Umm...
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
  			val |= FIELD_PREP(STRTAB_STE_0_CFG, STRTAB_STE_0_CFG_ABORT);
  		else
  			val |= FIELD_PREP(STRTAB_STE_0_CFG, STRTAB_STE_0_CFG_BYPASS);
@@ -1320,7 +1320,7 @@ static void arm_smmu_init_bypass_stes(__le64 *strtab, unsigned int nent)
  	unsigned int i;
  
  	for (i = 0; i < nent; ++i) {
-		arm_smmu_write_strtab_ent(NULL, -1, strtab);
+		arm_smmu_write_strtab_ent(NULL, -1, strtab, false);
...and in particular, an operation named "init_bypass_stes" passing 
bypass=false is just breaking my brain. Can we pull the logic for 
default bypass/fault out to here as part of the refactoring so that it 
actually makes sense?

Robin.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
  		strtab += STRTAB_STE_DWORDS;
  	}
  }
@@ -2097,7 +2097,7 @@ static void arm_smmu_install_ste_for_dev(struct arm_smmu_master *master)
  		if (j < i)
  			continue;
  
-		arm_smmu_write_strtab_ent(master, sid, step);
+		arm_smmu_write_strtab_ent(master, sid, step, false);
  	}
  }
  
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help