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:   Wed, 14 Jul 2021 10:20:21 +0200
From:   Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Bill Mills <bill.mills@linaro.org>,
        Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e?= <alex.bennee@linaro.org>,
        "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <info@metux.net>,
        Jie Deng <jie.deng@intel.com>,
        DTML <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:DRM DRIVER FOR QEMU'S CIRRUS DEVICE" 
        <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] dt-bindings: virtio: mmio: Add support for device
 subnode
Message-ID: <YO6eRXz/J1tPOi0P@myrica>
References: <cover.1626173013.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <aa4bf68fdd13b885a6dc1b98f88834916d51d97d.1626173013.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <CAL_Jsq+SiE+ciZfASHKUfLU1YMPfB43YmSciT_+gQHvL99_wUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210713151917.zouwfckidnjxvohn@vireshk-i7>
 <CAL_JsqL9255n5RT=Gq_uru7rEP0bSVcyfXEPRY4F0M4S2HPvTA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK8P3a3Gve=M9GF-E+2OJED1Hd1qngxOkVSO15wB0jVWK8D0_Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a3Gve=M9GF-E+2OJED1Hd1qngxOkVSO15wB0jVWK8D0_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 10:34:03PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > Is it going to be a problem if two devices in kernel use the same
> > > of_node ?
> >
> > There shouldn't be. We have nodes be multiple providers (e.g clocks
> > and resets) already.
> 
> I think this would be a little different, but it can still work. There is in
> fact already some precedent of doing this, with Jean-Philippe's virtio-iommu
> binding, which is documented in both
> 
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/virtio/iommu.txt
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/virtio/mmio.txt
> 
> Unfortunately, those are still slightly different from where I think we should
> be going here, but it's probably close enough to fit into the general
> system.
> 
> What we have with virtio-iommu is two special hacks:
>  - on virtio-mmio, a node with 'compatible="virtio,mmio"' may optionally
>    have an '#iommu-cells=<1>', in which case we assume it's an iommu.
>  - for virtio-pci, the node has the standard PCI 'reg' property but a special
>    'compatible="virtio,pci-iommu"' property that I think is different from any
>    other PCI node.

Yes in retrospect I don't think the compatible property on the PCI
endpoint node is necessary nor useful, we could deprecate it. The OS gets
the IOMMU topology information early from 'iommus', 'iommu-map' and
'#iommu-cells' properties, which is the only reason we need this PCI
endpoint explicitly described in DT. The rest is discovered while probing
just like virtio-mmio.

Thanks,
Jean