Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:8c0a:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id go10csp950004pxb; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 22:13:14 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw3+BASon2lqeNuObDI165aAwWVz0PGGnWjDR2ds5AApbE2eGJMNrex5zyEulhR1QTFuJlk X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:bfcc:: with SMTP id us12mr2558400ejb.266.1614838394482; Wed, 03 Mar 2021 22:13:14 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1614838394; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=fJZGdU4aVIyUIMB4FGK0BkMf3iOsAvN+oSfPwYnO0/yiYfL0eT6Mp0NgxXNeH4cP8b u9qf62MH99JX3lnuqMLMoth8wVBDn07Q8DEB2MPqcTKSgw7FwsCO288EfypeW2Q625RT U9VaMm+Fea/2fqm4DQ56DaL9nXvIwzG4i5nTubJFUuSv9jY+3+YZAJrfGP7akJsyLK54 wyhoGTEr2GkMPFo36uqNhtY9C2HdLfVVEV2ouot/wZrTbj4P5FyPF/b6gwO9Ttugi5LU QBCHIfOkACtETGFHnf3imMVQcn+hSS2X5EBqSl0ahNBdyoq2FuPXbrqOKnwJ48muY0g/ 1BvA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:content-transfer-encoding:content-language :in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date:message-id:from:references :cc:to:subject; bh=5YIQpF79HXZo7cjcQ5XYLFJO+t04pMUNa1+i/LF6/nM=; b=dwLtpz2ubefoIQx2vxcBrZ6bfh+AGZPspAwDDfcczpxdvpoCR7uPTZO0fuf6qdvrE4 4qF4dS3GHnyU7tVIR0SbYPu/No5zXCYga+WKGAP1y37wpD19jN8lSjN5DDXtiWei4bB6 PEx13ruH9pzpi6cX29wG0hUbZNDsnFH3wKmI9za0RCHr70xkK6pas/pKfdst+ePQz94d UO+RF0WH/NMLR+xePVJkPgV8qZUz2O+LEFA78cdiLTXqm/+JP5jfAB8I6tYC9U7Fzhmk /6q9YrwZzcaJtDLNuaMJlqoDJmU5uIKEE7UdCvEpRAcG47x/KoFU+dpjbbjkVActIEtU OR3Q== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=arm.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id r22si6144757eds.172.2021.03.03.22.12.52; Wed, 03 Mar 2021 22:13:14 -0800 (PST) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=arm.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1442191AbhCBLUR (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 2 Mar 2021 06:20:17 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:49570 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1383247AbhCBLIJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Mar 2021 06:08:09 -0500 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27DBAED1; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 03:07:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.57.48.219] (unknown [10.57.48.219]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C9C703F73C; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 03:07:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [RFC 09/13] iommu/arm-smmu: Make use of dev_64bit_mmio_supported() To: Nicolas Saenz Julienne , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: f.fainelli@gmail.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, ardb@kernel.org, hch@infradead.org, narmstrong@baylibre.com, dwmw2@infradead.org, linux@armlinux.org.uk, catalin.marinas@arm.com, arnd@arndb.de, will@kernel.org References: <20210226140305.26356-1-nsaenzjulienne@suse.de> <20210226140305.26356-10-nsaenzjulienne@suse.de> From: Robin Murphy Message-ID: <3a4cf13f-c098-9ff3-6c0e-2c94daae452b@arm.com> Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2021 11:07:19 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210226140305.26356-10-nsaenzjulienne@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2021-02-26 14:03, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote: > Some arm SMMU implementations might sit on a bus that doesn't support > 64bit memory accesses. In that case default to using hi_lo_{readq, > writeq}() and BUG if such platform tries to use AArch64 formats as they > rely on writeq()'s atomicity. > > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Saenz Julienne > --- > drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c | 9 +++++++++ > drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.h | 9 +++++++-- > 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c > index d8c6bfde6a61..239ff42b20c3 100644 > --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c > +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c > @@ -1889,6 +1889,15 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_cfg_probe(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu) > smmu->features |= ARM_SMMU_FEAT_FMT_AARCH64_64K; > } > > + /* > + * 64bit accesses not possible through the interconnect, AArch64 > + * formats depend on it. > + */ > + BUG_ON(!dev_64bit_mmio_supported(smmu->dev) && > + smmu->features & (ARM_SMMU_FEAT_FMT_AARCH64_4K | > + ARM_SMMU_FEAT_FMT_AARCH64_16K | > + ARM_SMMU_FEAT_FMT_AARCH64_64K)); No. Crashing the kernel in a probe routine which is free to fail is unacceptable either way, but guaranteeing failure in the case that the workaround *would* be required is doubly so. Basically, this logic is backwards - if you really wanted to handle it generically, this would be the point at which you'd need to actively suppress all the detected hardware features which depend on 64-bit atomicity, not complain about them. > + > if (smmu->impl && smmu->impl->cfg_probe) { > ret = smmu->impl->cfg_probe(smmu); > if (ret) > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.h b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.h > index d2a2d1bc58ba..997d13a21717 100644 > --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.h > +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.h > @@ -477,15 +477,20 @@ static inline void arm_smmu_writel(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, int page, > { > if (smmu->impl && unlikely(smmu->impl->write_reg)) > smmu->impl->write_reg(smmu, page, offset, val); > - else > + else if (dev_64bit_mmio_supported(smmu->dev)) > writel_relaxed(val, arm_smmu_page(smmu, page) + offset); > + else > + hi_lo_writeq_relaxed(val, arm_smmu_page(smmu, page) + offset); As Arnd pointed out, this is in completely the wrong place. Also, in general it doesn't work if the implementation already needs a hook to filter or override register accesses for any other reason. TBH I'm not convinced that this isn't *more* of a mess than handling it on a SoC-specific basis... Robin. > } > > static inline u64 arm_smmu_readq(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, int page, int offset) > { > if (smmu->impl && unlikely(smmu->impl->read_reg64)) > return smmu->impl->read_reg64(smmu, page, offset); > - return readq_relaxed(arm_smmu_page(smmu, page) + offset); > + else if (dev_64bit_mmio_supported(smmu->dev)) > + return readq_relaxed(arm_smmu_page(smmu, page) + offset); > + else > + return hi_lo_readq_relaxed(arm_smmu_page(smmu, page) + offset); > } > > static inline void arm_smmu_writeq(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, int page, >