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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230621063825.268890-1-mshavit@google.com> <20230621063825.268890-3-mshavit@google.com>
 <ZK9RycgNAVrxe343@Asurada-Nvidia> <CAKHBV26wi+xKnNjo-R+QOcVLPH2KJTFP+mF4CW1xE61nOdF5GA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZLAKQw+DzcpSRSyi@nvidia.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZLAKQw+DzcpSRSyi@nvidia.com>
From:   Michael Shavit <mshavit@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 Jul 2023 00:16:16 +0800
Message-ID: <CAKHBV25YadRVFiag5z5Yc13L093ScWkCjAOCd=VuGm2RUaDyzA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/13] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add smmu_s1_cfg to smmu_master
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
Cc:     Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, jean-philippe@linaro.org,
        baolu.lu@linux.intel.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        iommu@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 10:29=E2=80=AFPM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> w=
rote:
> It would make alot more sense if the STE value used by an unmanaged S1
> domain was located in/near the unmanaged domain or called 'unmanaged
> S1 STE' or something if it really has to be in the master. Why does
> this even need to be stored, can't we compute it?

struct s1_cfg* and struct s2_cfg* are precisely what is used to
compute an STE. For example, when s1_cfg is set, arm_smmu_write_strtab
will write the s1_cfg's CD table dma_pointer into the STE's
STRTAB_STE_0_CFG field. When neither are set, the STE fields are
written to enable bypass (or abort depending on the config).

> I'd think the basic mental model should be to extract the STE from the
> thing you intend to install. Either the default CD table, or from the
> iommu_domain. ie some 'get STE from iommu_domain' function?

I don't follow this. When we attach a domain with pasid (whether
through SVA or the set_dev_pasid API) , we don't want to install an
entirely new CD table. We want to write something (page-table pointer)
to a common CD table. Where should the s1_cfg which owns that common
table live? I thought we concluded that it should be owned by the
arm_smmu_master rather than any domain (to avoid dependencies between
domains a-la aux-domain). With this change, even attach_dev with a DMA
or UNMANAGED domain is now just preparing a single entry into this
common CD table.