Date:	Thu, 25 Feb 2016 13:26:17 +0100
From:	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
	Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
	Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@....fi>,
	Mark Yao <mark.yao@...k-chips.com>,
	Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
	Tomasz Figa <tfiga@...omium.org>,
	Inki Dae <inki.dae@...sung.com>,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 3/3] iommu: dma-iommu: use common implementation also on ARM
 architecture

Hello,

On 2016-02-19 11:30, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 19 February 2016 09:22:44 Marek Szyprowski wrote:
>> This patch replaces ARM-specific IOMMU-based DMA-mapping implementation
>> with generic IOMMU DMA-mapping code shared with ARM64 architecture. The
>> side-effect of this change is a switch from bitmap-based IO address space
>> management to tree-based code. There should be no functional changes
>> for drivers, which rely on initialization from generic arch_setup_dna_ops()
>> interface. Code, which used old arm_iommu_* functions must be updated to
>> new interface.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
> I like the overall idea. However, this interface from the iommu
> subsystem into architecture specific code:
>
>> +/*
>> + * The DMA API is built upon the notion of "buffer ownership".  A buffer
>> + * is either exclusively owned by the CPU (and therefore may be accessed
>> + * by it) or exclusively owned by the DMA device.  These helper functions
>> + * represent the transitions between these two ownership states.
>> + *
>> + * Note, however, that on later ARMs, this notion does not work due to
>> + * speculative prefetches.  We model our approach on the assumption that
>> + * the CPU does do speculative prefetches, which means we clean caches
>> + * before transfers and delay cache invalidation until transfer completion.
>> + *
>> + */
>> +extern void __dma_page_cpu_to_dev(struct page *, unsigned long, size_t,
>> +				  enum dma_data_direction);
>> +extern void __dma_page_dev_to_cpu(struct page *, unsigned long, size_t,
>> +				  enum dma_data_direction);
>> +
>> +static inline void arch_flush_page(struct device *dev, const void *virt,
>> +			    phys_addr_t phys)
>> +{
>> +	dmac_flush_range(virt, virt + PAGE_SIZE);
>> +	outer_flush_range(phys, phys + PAGE_SIZE);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline void arch_dma_map_area(phys_addr_t phys, size_t size,
>> +				     enum dma_data_direction dir)
>> +{
>> +	unsigned int offset = phys & ~PAGE_MASK;
>> +	__dma_page_cpu_to_dev(phys_to_page(phys & PAGE_MASK), offset, size, dir);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline void arch_dma_unmap_area(phys_addr_t phys, size_t size,
>> +				       enum dma_data_direction dir)
>> +{
>> +	unsigned int offset = phys & ~PAGE_MASK;
>> +	__dma_page_dev_to_cpu(phys_to_page(phys & PAGE_MASK), offset, size, dir);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline pgprot_t arch_get_dma_pgprot(struct dma_attrs *attrs,
>> +					pgprot_t prot, bool coherent)
>> +{
>> +	if (coherent)
>> +		return prot;
>> +
>> +	prot = dma_get_attr(DMA_ATTR_WRITE_COMBINE, attrs) ?
>> +			    pgprot_writecombine(prot) :
>> +			    pgprot_dmacoherent(prot);
>> +	return prot;
>> +}
>> +
>> +extern void *arch_alloc_from_atomic_pool(size_t size, struct page **ret_page,
>> +					 gfp_t flags);
>> +extern bool arch_in_atomic_pool(void *start, size_t size);
>> +extern int arch_free_from_atomic_pool(void *start, size_t size);
>> +
>> +
> doesn't feel completely right yet. In particular the arch_flush_page()
> interface is probably still too specific to ARM/ARM64 and won't work
> that way on other architectures.
>
> I think it would be better to do this either more generic, or less generic:
>
> a) leave the iommu_dma_map_ops definition in the architecture specific
>     code, but make it call helper functions in the drivers/iommu to do all
>     of the really generic parts.
>
> b) clarify that this is only applicable to arch/arm and arch/arm64, and
>     unify things further between these two, as they have very similar
>     requirements in the CPU architecture.

Some really generic parts are already in iommu/dma-iommu.c and one can build
it's own, non-ARM CPU architecture based IOMMU/DMA-mapping code. Initially I
also wanted to use that generic code on both ARM and ARM64, but it 
turned out
that both archs, ARM and ARM64 will duplicate 99% of code, which use this
'generic' functions. This was the reason why I dedided to move all that
common code from arch/{arm,arm64}/mm/dma-mapping.c to
drivers/iommu/dma-iommu-ops.c

I'm not sure if I can design all the changes that need to be made to
drivers/iommu/dma-iommu-ops.c to make it more generic. Maybe when one will
try to use that code with other, non-ARM architecture based arch glue code,
a better abstraction can be developed. For now I would like to keep all this
code in a common place so both arm and arm64 will benefit from improvements
done there.

Best regards
-- 
Marek Szyprowski, PhD
Samsung R&D Institute Poland

Powered by blists - more mailing lists