Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 5 Feb 2021 10:51:14 +0100
From:   Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>
To:     Keqian Zhu <zhukeqian1@huawei.com>
Cc:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, jiangkunkun@huawei.com,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>, lushenming@huawei.com,
        Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@nvidia.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>, wanghaibin.wang@huawei.com,
        "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 01/11] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add feature detection for
 HTTU
Message-ID: <YB0VErwkA0ivRXTd@myrica>
References: <20210128151742.18840-1-zhukeqian1@huawei.com>
 <20210128151742.18840-2-zhukeqian1@huawei.com>
 <f8be5718-d4d9-0565-eaf0-b5a128897d15@arm.com>
 <df1b8fb2-b853-e797-0072-9dbdffc4ff67@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <df1b8fb2-b853-e797-0072-9dbdffc4ff67@huawei.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Keqian,

On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 05:13:50PM +0800, Keqian Zhu wrote:
> > We need to accommodate the firmware override as well if we need this to be meaningful. Jean-Philippe is already carrying a suitable patch in the SVA stack[1].
> Robin, Thanks for pointing it out.
> 
> Jean, I see that the IORT HTTU flag overrides the hardware register info unconditionally. I have some concern about it:
> 
> If the override flag has HTTU but hardware doesn't support it, then driver will use this feature but receive access fault or permission fault from SMMU unexpectedly.
> 1) If IOPF is not supported, then kernel can not work normally.
> 2) If IOPF is supported, kernel will perform useless actions, such as HTTU based dma dirty tracking (this series).
> 
> As the IORT spec doesn't give an explicit explanation for HTTU override, can we comprehend it as a mask for HTTU related hardware register?

To me "Overrides the value of SMMU_IDR0.HTTU" is clear enough: disregard
the value of SMMU_IDR0.HTTU and use the one specified by IORT instead. And
that's both ways, since there is no validity mask for the IORT value: if
there is an IORT table, always ignore SMMU_IDR0.HTTU.

That's how the SMMU driver implements the COHACC bit, which has the same
wording in IORT. So I think we should implement HTTU the same way.

One complication is that there is no equivalent override for device tree.
I think it can be added later if necessary, because unlike IORT it can be
tri state (property not present, overriden positive, overridden negative).

Thanks,
Jean