[PATCH 3/5] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: add IOMMU_CAP_BYPASS to the ARM SMMUv3 driver
From: Will Deacon <hidden>
Date: 2017-07-20 09:10:02
Also in:
kvm, linux-iommu, lkml
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 09:32:00AM +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Will Deacon [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
There are two things here: 1. iommu_present() is pretty useless, because it applies to a "bus" which doesn't actually tell you what you need to know for things like the platform_bus, where some masters might be upstream of an SMMU and others might not be.I agree with you. The iommu_present() check in vfio_iommu_group_get() is not much useful. We only reach line which checks iommu_present() when iommu_group_get() returns NULL for given "struct device *". If there is no IOMMU group for a "struct device *" then it means there is no IOMMU HW doing translations for such device. If we drop the iommu_present() check (due to above reasons) in vfio_iommu_group_get() then we don't require the IOMMU_CAP_BYPASS and we can happily drop PATCH1, PATCH2, and PATCH3. I will remove the iommu_present() check in vfio_iommu_group_get() because it is only comes into actions when VFIO_NOIOMMU is enabled. This will also help us drop PATCH1-to-PATCH3.
I don't think that's the right answer. Whilst iommu_present has obvious shortcomings, its intention is clear: it should tell you whether a given *device* is upstream of an IOMMU. So the right fix is to make this per-device, instead of per-bus. Removing it altogether is worse than leaving it like it is.
quoted
2. If a master *is* upstream of an IOMMU and you want to use no-IOMMU, then the VFIO no-IOMMU code needs to be extended so that it creates an IDENTITY domain on that IOMMU.The VFIO no-IOMMU mode is equivalent to Linux UIO hence having IDENTITY domain for VFIO no-IOMMU is not appropriate here.
Can you elaborate on this please? I don't understand the argument you're making. It's like saying "I don't like eggs, therefore I don't drive a car". Will