[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <36764562-ad54-b192-4084-842fee8fca78@linux.intel.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2022 16:01:59 +0800
From: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, joro@...tes.org,
will@...nel.org
Cc: iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, sven@...npeter.dev,
robdclark@...il.com, m.szyprowski@...sung.com,
yong.wu@...iatek.com, mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com,
gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com, zhang.lyra@...il.com,
thierry.reding@...il.com, vdumpa@...dia.com,
jean-philippe@...aro.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/13] iommu: Move bus setup to IOMMU device registration
Hi Robin,
On 2022/4/19 15:20, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2022-04-19 00:37, Lu Baolu wrote:
>> On 2022/4/19 6:09, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>> On 2022-04-16 01:04, Lu Baolu wrote:
>>>> On 2022/4/14 20:42, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>>>> @@ -1883,27 +1900,12 @@ static int iommu_bus_init(struct bus_type
>>>>> *bus)
>>>>> */
>>>>> int bus_set_iommu(struct bus_type *bus, const struct iommu_ops *ops)
>>>>> {
>>>>> - int err;
>>>>> -
>>>>> - if (ops == NULL) {
>>>>> - bus->iommu_ops = NULL;
>>>>> - return 0;
>>>>> - }
>>>>> -
>>>>> - if (bus->iommu_ops != NULL)
>>>>> + if (bus->iommu_ops && ops && bus->iommu_ops != ops)
>>>>> return -EBUSY;
>>>>> bus->iommu_ops = ops;
>>>>
>>>> Do we still need to keep above lines in bus_set_iommu()?
>>>
>>> It preserves the existing behaviour until each callsite and its
>>> associated error handling are removed later on, which seems like as
>>> good a thing to do as any. Since I'm already relaxing
>>> iommu_device_register() to a warn-but-continue behaviour while it
>>> keeps the bus ops on life-support internally, I figured not changing
>>> too much at once would make it easier to bisect any potential issues
>>> arising from this first step.
>>
>> Fair enough. Thank you for the explanation.
>>
>> Do you have a public tree that I could pull these patches and try them
>> on an Intel hardware? Or perhaps you have done this? I like the whole
>> idea of this series, but it's better to try it with a real hardware.
>
> I haven't bothered with separate branches since there's so many
> different pieces in-flight, but my complete (unstable) development
> branch can be found here:
>
> https://gitlab.arm.com/linux-arm/linux-rm/-/commits/iommu/bus
>
> For now I'd recommend winding the head back to "iommu: Clean up
> bus_set_iommu()" for testing - some of the patches above that have
> already been posted and picked up by their respective subsystems, but
> others are incomplete and barely compile-tested. I'll probably rearrange
> it later this week to better reflect what's happened so far.
I wound the head back to "iommu: Clean up bus_set_iommu" and tested it
on an Intel machine. It got stuck during boot. This test was on a remote
machine and I have no means to access it physically. So I can't get any
kernel debugging messages. (I have to work from home these days. :-()
I guess it's due to the fact that intel_iommu_probe_device() callback
only works for the pci devices. The issue occurs when probing a device
other than a PCI one.
Best regards,
baolu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists