linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 2/2] iommu/arm-smmu-qcom: Move the adreno smmu specific impl earlier

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: <727fa9fe2e644f88ba35c2877d71788e@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Thu, 25 Mar 2021 13:10:12 +0530
From:   Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@...eaurora.org>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     akhilpo@...eaurora.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        jcrouse@...eaurora.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        robdclark@...il.com, robin.murphy@....com,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Jordan Crouse <jordan@...micpenguin.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 2/2] iommu/arm-smmu-qcom: Move the adreno smmu specific
 impl earlier

Hi Will,

On 2021-03-15 00:31, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
> On 2021-03-12 04:59, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>> On Sat 27 Feb 07:53 CST 2021, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Bjorn,
>>> 
>>> On 2021-02-27 00:44, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>>> > On Fri 26 Feb 12:23 CST 2021, Rob Clark wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > The current logic picks one of:
>>> > 1) is the compatible mentioned in qcom_smmu_impl_of_match[]
>>> > 2) is the compatible an adreno
>>> > 3) no quirks needed
>>> >
>>> > The change flips the order of these, so the only way I can see this
>>> > change affecting things is if we expected a match on #2, but we got one
>>> > on #1.
>>> >
>>> > Which implies that the instance that we want to act according to the
>>> > adreno impl was listed in qcom_smmu_impl_of_match[] - which either is
>>> > wrong, or there's a single instance that needs both behaviors.
>>> >
>>> > (And I believe Jordan's answer confirms the latter - there's a single
>>> > SMMU instance that needs all them quirks at once)
>>> >
>>> 
>>> Let me go through the problem statement in case my commit message 
>>> wasn't
>>> clear. There are two SMMUs (APSS and GPU) on SC7280 and both are 
>>> SMMU500
>>> (ARM SMMU IP).
>>> 
>>> APSS SMMU compatible - ("qcom,sc7280-smmu-500", "arm,mmu-500")
>>> GPU SMMU compatible - ("qcom,sc7280-smmu-500", "qcom,adreno-smmu", 
>>> "arm,mmu-500")
>>> 
>>> Now if we take SC7180 as an example, GPU SMMU was QSMMU(QCOM SMMU IP)
>>> and APSS SMMU was SMMU500(ARM SMMU IP).
>>> 
>>> APSS SMMU compatible - ("qcom,sc7180-smmu-500", "arm,mmu-500")
>>> GPU SMMU compatible - ("qcom,sc7180-smmu-v2", "qcom,adreno-smmu", 
>>> "qcom,smmu-v2")
>>> 
>>> Current code sequence without this patch,
>>> 
>>> if (of_match_node(qcom_smmu_impl_of_match, np))
>>>                  return qcom_smmu_create(smmu, &qcom_smmu_impl);
>>> 
>>> if (of_device_is_compatible(np, "qcom,adreno-smmu"))
>>>         return qcom_smmu_create(smmu, &qcom_adreno_smmu_impl);
>>> 
>>> Now if we look at the compatible for SC7180, there is no problem 
>>> because
>>> the APSS SMMU will match the one in qcom_smmu_impl_of_match[] and GPU 
>>> SMMU
>>> will match "qcom,adreno-smmu" because the compatible strings are 
>>> different.
>>> But for SC7280, both the APSS SMMU and GPU SMMU 
>>> compatible("qcom,sc7280-smmu-500")
>>> are same. So GPU SMMU will match with the one in 
>>> qcom_smmu_impl_of_match[]
>>> i.e.., "qcom,sc7280-smmu-500" which functionally doesn't cause any 
>>> problem
>>> but we will miss settings for split pagetables which are part of GPU 
>>> SMMU
>>> specific implementation.
>>> 
>>> We can avoid this with yet another new compatible for GPU SMMU 
>>> something like
>>> "qcom,sc7280-adreno-smmu-500" but since we can handle this easily in 
>>> the
>>> driver and since the IPs are same, meaning if there was a hardware 
>>> quirk
>>> required, then we would need to apply to both of them and would this 
>>> additional
>>> compatible be of any help?
>>> 
>> 
>> No, I think you're doing the right thing of having them both. I just
>> didn't remember us doing that.
>> 
>>> Coming to the part of quirks now, you are right saying both SMMUs 
>>> will need
>>> to have the same quirks in SC7280 and similar others where both are 
>>> based on
>>> same IPs but those should probably be *hardware quirks* and if they 
>>> are
>>> software based like the S2CR quirk depending on the firmware, then it 
>>> might
>>> not be applicable to both. In case if it is applicable, then as 
>>> Jordan mentioned,
>>> we can add the same quirks in GPU SMMU implementation.
>>> 
>> 
>> I do suspect that at some point (probably sooner than later) we'd have
>> to support both inheriting of stream from the bootloader and the 
>> Adreno
>> "quirks" in the same instance.
>> 
>> But for now this is okay to me.
>> 
> 
> Sure, let me know if you or anyone face any issues without it and I 
> will
> add it. I will resend this series with the dt-bindings patch for sc7280 
> smmu
> which wasn't cc'd to smmu folks by mistake.
> 

I think there is consensus on this series. I can resend if required but 
it
still applies cleanly, let me know if you have any comments?

Thanks,
Sai

-- 
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a 
member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation