[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8ba2f53d-abbf-af7f-07f6-48ad7f383a37@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 12:53:17 +0000
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Jordan Crouse <jcrouse@...eaurora.org>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Krishna Reddy <vdumpa@...dia.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] iommu/arm-smmu: Add support for driver IOMMU fault
handlers
On 2021-01-22 12:41, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:15:58PM -0700, Jordan Crouse wrote:
>> Call report_iommu_fault() to allow upper-level drivers to register their
>> own fault handlers.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jordan Crouse <jcrouse@...eaurora.org>
>> ---
>>
>> drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c
>> index 0f28a8614da3..7fd18bbda8f5 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c
>> @@ -427,6 +427,7 @@ static irqreturn_t arm_smmu_context_fault(int irq, void *dev)
>> struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain = to_smmu_domain(domain);
>> struct arm_smmu_device *smmu = smmu_domain->smmu;
>> int idx = smmu_domain->cfg.cbndx;
>> + int ret;
>>
>> fsr = arm_smmu_cb_read(smmu, idx, ARM_SMMU_CB_FSR);
>> if (!(fsr & ARM_SMMU_FSR_FAULT))
>> @@ -436,11 +437,20 @@ static irqreturn_t arm_smmu_context_fault(int irq, void *dev)
>> iova = arm_smmu_cb_readq(smmu, idx, ARM_SMMU_CB_FAR);
>> cbfrsynra = arm_smmu_gr1_read(smmu, ARM_SMMU_GR1_CBFRSYNRA(idx));
>>
>> - dev_err_ratelimited(smmu->dev,
>> - "Unhandled context fault: fsr=0x%x, iova=0x%08lx, fsynr=0x%x, cbfrsynra=0x%x, cb=%d\n",
>> + ret = report_iommu_fault(domain, dev, iova,
>> + fsynr & ARM_SMMU_FSYNR0_WNR ? IOMMU_FAULT_WRITE : IOMMU_FAULT_READ);
>> +
>> + if (ret == -ENOSYS)
>> + dev_err_ratelimited(smmu->dev,
>> + "Unhandled context fault: fsr=0x%x, iova=0x%08lx, fsynr=0x%x, cbfrsynra=0x%x, cb=%d\n",
>> fsr, iova, fsynr, cbfrsynra, idx);
>>
>> - arm_smmu_cb_write(smmu, idx, ARM_SMMU_CB_FSR, fsr);
>> + /*
>> + * If the iommu fault returns an error (except -ENOSYS) then assume that
>> + * they will handle resuming on their own
>> + */
>> + if (!ret || ret == -ENOSYS)
>> + arm_smmu_cb_write(smmu, idx, ARM_SMMU_CB_FSR, fsr);
>
> Hmm, I don't grok this part. If the fault handler returned an error and
> we don't clear the FSR, won't we just re-take the irq immediately?
If we don't touch the FSR at all, yes. Even if we clear the fault
indicator bits, the interrupt *might* remain asserted until a stalled
transaction is actually resolved - that's that lovely IMP-DEF corner.
Robin.
> I think
> it would be better to do this unconditionally, and print the "Unhandled
> context fault" message for any non-zero value of ret.
>
> Will
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists