[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdXi9s_b0xjaQ3n_-qFfdwfBtxnrhYfVuRENJM5UJ9TUwg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 09:25:26 +0100
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-clk <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Linux IOMMU <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/8] of: property: Add fw_devlink support for optional properties
Hi Saravana,
CC iommu
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 10:55 PM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 1:33 PM Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 02:26:40PM -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> > > Not all DT bindings are mandatory bindings. Add support for optional DT
> > > bindings and mark iommus, iommu-map, dmas as optional DT bindings.
> >
> > I don't think we can say these are optional or not. It's got to be a
> > driver decision somehow.
>
> Right, so maybe the word "optional" isn't a good name for it. I can
> change that if you want.
>
> The point being, fw_devlink can't block the probe of this driver based
> on iommu property. We let the driver decide if it wants to
> -EPROBE_DEFER or not or however it wants to handle this.
The driver cannot make that decision, cfr. below.
> > For example, if IOMMU is optional, what happens with this sequence:
> >
> > driver probes without IOMMU
> > driver calls dma_map_?()
> > IOMMU driver probes
> > h/w accesses DMA buffer --> BOOM!
Does it really behave that way? Or does it continue without IOMMU?
> Right. But how is this really related to fw_devlink? AFAICT, this is
> an issue even today. If the driver needs the IOMMU, then it needs to
> make sure the IOMMU has probed? What am I missing?
Individual I/O (IOMMU slave) drivers are completely unaware of the
presence or absence of an IOMMU; they just use the DMA API, which is the
same regardless of an IOMMU being used or not.
While for GPIO/IRQ/CLK/DMA/... have request/get_{gpio,irq,clk,dma,...}
APIs for a driver to get a reference, which can return -EPROBE_DEFER, no
such thing exists for IOMMUs. This is handled by the IOMMU core
instead.
Using the IOMMU or not is more like a system policy decision.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Powered by blists - more mailing lists