Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 16 Apr 2019 16:21:00 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Cc:     John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>,
        Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe.brucker@arm.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        linux-doc <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Sebastian Ott <sebott@linux.ibm.com>,
        Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@de.ibm.com>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
        iommu <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        x86 <x86@kernel.org>, linux-ia64 <linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org>,
        Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] iommu: add generic boot option iommu.dma_mode
Message-ID: <20190416152100.GB4187@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <20190409125308.18304-1-thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
 <20190409125308.18304-2-thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
 <010d3cbd-ef74-ad21-c735-0af8b18955e6@huawei.com>
 <222946ee-adcc-1311-82a7-6afc9ffbc846@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <222946ee-adcc-1311-82a7-6afc9ffbc846@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.1+86 (6f28e57d73f2) ()
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 02:11:31PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 12/04/2019 11:26, John Garry wrote:
> > On 09/04/2019 13:53, Zhen Lei wrote:
> > > +static int __init iommu_dma_mode_setup(char *str)
> > > +{
> > > +??? if (!str)
> > > +??????? goto fail;
> > > +
> > > +??? if (!strncmp(str, "passthrough", 11))
> > > +??????? iommu_default_dma_mode = IOMMU_DMA_MODE_PASSTHROUGH;
> > > +??? else if (!strncmp(str, "lazy", 4))
> > > +??????? iommu_default_dma_mode = IOMMU_DMA_MODE_LAZY;
> > > +??? else if (!strncmp(str, "strict", 6))
> > > +??????? iommu_default_dma_mode = IOMMU_DMA_MODE_STRICT;
> > > +??? else
> > > +??????? goto fail;
> > > +
> > > +??? pr_info("Force dma mode to be %d\n", iommu_default_dma_mode);
> > 
> > What happens if the cmdline option iommu.dma_mode is passed multiple
> > times? We get mutliple - possibily conflicting - prints, right?
> 
> Indeed; we ended up removing such prints for the existing options here,
> specifically because multiple messages seemed more likely to be confusing
> than useful.
> 
> > And do we need to have backwards compatibility, such that the setting
> > for iommu.strict or iommu.passthrough trumps iommu.dma_mode, regardless
> > of order?
> 
> As above I think it would be preferable to just keep using the existing
> options anyway. The current behaviour works out as:
> 
> iommu.passthrough |      Y	|	  N
> iommu.strict	  |      x	|    Y         N
> ------------------|-------------|---------|--------
> MODE		  | PASSTHROUGH | STRICT  |  LAZY
> 
> which seems intuitive enough that a specific dma_mode option doesn't add
> much value, and would more likely just overcomplicate things for users as
> well as our implementation.

Agreed. We can't remove the existing options, and they do the job perfectly
well so I don't see the need to add more options on top.

Will