Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 22 Mar 2023 14:36:19 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To:     Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>
Cc:     Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>, iommu@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org,
        Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommu/rockchip: Add missing set_platform_dma_ops callback
Message-ID: <ZBs8k8nki/iqUiwE@ziepe.ca>
References: <20230315164152.333251-1-steven.price@arm.com>
 <ZBnBU9OU4iV6CV0W@ziepe.ca>
 <85607806-b888-2d5e-67a4-e9d63ebd1976@arm.com>
 <ZBr5e6tn1i7EE/16@ziepe.ca>
 <a5b946f0-5be8-a656-a8d5-1cd75399f0c4@arm.com>
 <ZBsb01emBJJMZIt0@ziepe.ca>
 <bee3e168-3fc3-89e8-6b10-a830f052cf55@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <bee3e168-3fc3-89e8-6b10-a830f052cf55@arm.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 04:04:25PM +0000, Steven Price wrote:
> On 22/03/2023 15:16, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 03:08:41PM +0000, Steven Price wrote:
> >> @@ -1035,8 +1055,9 @@ static int rk_iommu_attach_device(struct iommu_domain *domain,
> >>  	if (iommu->domain == domain)
> >>  		return 0;
> >>  
> >> -	if (iommu->domain)
> >> -		rk_iommu_detach_device(iommu->domain, dev);
> >> +	ret = rk_iommu_identity_attach(&rk_identity_domain, dev);
> >> +	if (ret)
> >> +		return ret;
> > 
> >>  
> >>  	iommu->domain = domain;
> >>  
> >> @@ -1049,8 +1070,6 @@ static int rk_iommu_attach_device(struct iommu_domain *domain,
> >>  		return 0;
> >>  
> >>  	ret = rk_iommu_enable(iommu);
> >> -	if (ret)
> >> -		rk_iommu_detach_device(iommu->domain, dev);
> > 
> > I think this still needs error handling, it should put it back to the
> > identity domain and return an error code if it fails to attach to the
> > requested domain.
> 
> What confused me here is that there's already a call to
> rk_iommu_identity_attach() just above. But I can obviously add a...

I don't know this driver at all, but to me it looks like this is
perhaps undoing a partially failed rk_iommu_enable() since it doesn't
seem to enetirely fix itself. Ie it zeros the INT_MASK and DTE_ADDR

Maybe it would be better to put that error cleanup direclty into
enable and just move the iommu->domain assignment to after enable
success.

>        if (ret)
>                rk_iommu_identity_attach(&rk_identity_domain, dev);
> 
> ... in here. But I don't know how to handle an error from
> rk_iommu_identity_attach() at this point. Does it need handling - is a
> WARN_ON sufficient?

WARN_ON should be fine, that is kind of hacky, it would be better to
organize things so there is an identity attach function that cannot
fail, ie pre-assumes all the validation is done alread.y

> 
> > It should also initlaize iommu->domain to the identity domain when the
> > iommu struct is allocated. The iommu->domain should never be
> > NULL. identity domain means the IOMMU is turned off which was
> > previously called "detached".
> 
> I presume you mean in rk_iommu_probe()?

It would be best if it was setup at allocation time so in
rk_iommu_of_xlate() before dev_iommu_priv_set()

Jason