linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] devicetree: Add generic IOMMU device tree bindings

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140604134400.GE28484@ulmo>
Date:	Wed, 4 Jun 2014 15:44:03 +0200
From:	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	Hiroshi Doyu <hdoyu@...dia.com>,
	Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Cho KyongHo <pullip.cho@...sung.com>,
	Grant Grundler <grundler@...omium.org>,
	Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux IOMMU <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org" 
	<linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] devicetree: Add generic IOMMU device tree bindings

On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 09:54:37PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 30 May 2014 22:29:13 Hiroshi Doyu wrote:
> > 
> > IIUC the original problem, "a master with 8 streamIDs" means something
> > like below, where some devices have multiple IDs but some have a
> > single. A sinle #address-cells cannot afford those 2 masters at once.
> > 
> >        iommu {
> >                /* the specifier represents the ID of the master */
> >                #address-cells = <1>;
> >                #size-cells = <0>;
> >        };
> > 
> >         master@a {
> >                 ...
> >                 iommus = <&smmu 1 2 3>; # 3 IDs
> >         };
> > 
> >         master@b {
> >                 ...
> >                 iommus = <&smmu 4>;     # 1 ID
> >         };
> 
> This would not be the usual format really. It should instead be
> 
> 		iommus = <&smmu 1>, <&smmu 2>, <&smmu 3>;
> 
> which can be tedious to type.

"Tedious to type" doesn't sound like a good argument to me. I don't see
why the above would necessarily be a bad notation. It's very much up to
the point and very explicit. This very obviously translates to:

	This device has three master interfaces, one for smmu ID 1, one
	for smmu ID 2 and one for smmu ID 3.

> > Tegra,SMMU has a similar problem and we have used a fixed size bitmap(64
> > bit) to afford 64 stream IDs so that a single device can hold multiple
> > IDs. If we apply the same bitmap to the above exmaple:
> > 
> >        iommu {
> >                /* the specifier represents the ID of the master */
> >                #address-cells = <1>;
> >                #size-cells = <0>;
> >        };
> > 
> >         master@a {
> >                 ...
> >                 iommus = <&smmu (BIT(1) | BIT(2) | BIT(3))>; # IDs 1 2 3
> >         };
> > 
> >         master@b {
> >                 ...
> >                 iommus = <&smmu BIT(4)>;     # ID 4
> >         };
> > 
> > The disadvantage of this is that this limits the max number of streamIDs
> > to support. If # of streamID is increased later more than 64, this
> > format cannot cover any more. You have to predict the max # of streamIDs
> > in advance if steamID is statically assigned.
> > 
> 
> Well, the iommu specific binding could allow a variable #address-cells.
> That way, you just need to know the number of stream IDs for that instance
> of the iommu.

That sounds fairly complicated to me. I don't see what that buys us over
the clarity and simplicity that the above explicit notation gives us. Is
it not more common for a device to have a single master rather than a
whole bunch of them?

Thierry

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped