Message-ID: <CAK9=C2VnkK5GNO4D1AWpiNcTE=OrSueN9NAyhR7rj9csuUi4Mg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 8 Feb 2023 09:24:28 +0530
From:   Anup Patel <apatel@...tanamicro.com>
To:     Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
Cc:     Atish Patra <atishp@...shpatra.org>,
        Stephano Cetola <stephano@...cv.org>,
        Jeff Scheel <jeff@...cv.org>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, pbonzini@...hat.com,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        ajones@...tanamicro.com, anup@...infault.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] RISC-V: Detect AIA CSRs from ISA string

On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 2:09 AM Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 10:15:22AM -0800, Atish Patra wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 10:05 AM Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 05:31:01PM +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 5:54 AM Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 23:27:32 PST (-0800), apatel@...tanamicro.com wrote:
> > > > > > We have two extension names for AIA ISA support: Smaia (M-mode AIA CSRs)
> > > > > > and Ssaia (S-mode AIA CSRs).
> > > > >
> > > > > This has pretty much the same problem that we had with the other
> > > > > AIA-related ISA string patches, where there's that ambiguity with the
> > > > > non-ratified chapters.  IIRC when this came up in GCC the rough idea was
> > > > > to try and document that we're going to interpret the standard ISA
> > > > > strings that way, but now that we're doing custom ISA extensions it
> > > > > seems saner to just define on here that removes the ambiguity.
> > > > >
> > > > > I just sent
> > > > > <https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230203001201.14770-1-palmer@rivosinc.com/>
> > > > > which documents that.
> > > >
> > > > I am not sure why you say that these are custom extensions.
> > > >
> > > > Multiple folks have clarified that both Smaia and Ssaia are frozen
> > > > ISA extensions as-per RVI process. The individual chapters which
> > > > are in the draft state have nothing to do with Smaia and Ssaia CSRs.
> > > >
> > > > Please refer:
> > > > https://github.com/riscv/riscv-aia/pull/36
> > > > https://lists.riscv.org/g/tech-aia/message/336
> > > > https://lists.riscv.org/g/tech-aia/message/337
> > >
> > > All of these links seem to discuss the draft chapters somehow being
> > > incompatible with the non-draft ones. I would very expect that that,
> > > as pointed out in several places there, that the draft chapters
> > > finalisation would not lead to meaningful (and incompatible!) changes
> > > being made to the non-draft chapters.
> > >
> >
> > Here is the status of all RVI specs. It states that the Smaia, Ssaia
> > extensions are frozen (i.e. public review complete).
> > https://wiki.riscv.org/display/HOME/Specification+Status
> >
> > I have added stephano/Jeff to confirm the same.
> >
> > AFAIK, IOMMU spec is close to the public review phase and should be
> > frozen in this or next quarter.
> > IIRC, this chapter in AIA will be frozen along with IOMMU spec.
> >
> > Anup: Please correct me if that's not correct.
> >
> > > Maybe yourself and Palmer are looking at this from different
> > > perspectives? Looking at his patch from Friday:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20230203001201.14770-1-palmer@rivosinc.com/
> > > He specifically mentioned this aspect, as opposed to the aspect that
> > > your links refer to.
> > >
> > > Surely a duo-plic, if that ever comes to be, could be detected from
> > > compatible strings in DT or w/e - but how do you intend differentiating
> > > between an implementation of S*aia that contains the IOMMU support in
> > > Chapter 9 in a finalised form, versus an implementation that may make
> > > "different decisions" when it comes to that chapter of the spec?
> >
> > We will most likely have an extension specific to iommu spec as well.
>
> Right, but unless I am misunderstanding you, that is an extension for the
> IOMMU spec, not for Chapter 9 of the AIA spec?
>
> I would say that it is likely that if you have AIA and IOMMU that you'd
> want to be implementing Chapter 9, but that would not appear sufficient to
> draw a conclusion from.
>
> Maybe the RVI lads that you've added (or Anup for that matter!) can
> clarify if there is a requirement that if you do AIA and IOMMU that you
> must do Chapter 9.
> If not, my prior question about a differentiation mechanism still applies
> I think!

For the benefit of everyone, the AIA spec mainly defines three
modular components:
1) Extended Local Interrupt CSRs (Smaia and Ssaia extensions)
    (ISA extension covered by: Chapter 2, Chapter 6, and Chapter 7)
2) Incoming MSI Controller (IMSIC)
    (ISA and Non-ISA extension covered by: Chapter 3 and Chapter 8)
3) Advanced PLIC (APLIC)
    (Non-ISA extension covered by: Chapter 4)

Apart from above, we have Chapter 5 ("Duo-PLIC") and Chapter 9
("IOMMU Support for MSIs to Virtual Machines") which are in draft
state.

Currently, there are no RISC-V members who have expressed
interest in implementing Chapter 5 ("Duo-PLIC") so this chapter
will stay in draft state for a foreseeable future.

The Chapter 9 ("IOMMU Support for MSIs to Virtual Machines")
defines an optional feature of IOMMU which can be implemented
by a standard IOMMU (such as RISC-V IOMMU) or a vendor specific
IOMMU. A RISC-V platform can certainly support device pass-through
using IMSIC guest files and an IOMMU which does not implement
Chapter 9. Unfortunately, there is a limit on the maximum number
of per-HART IMSIC guest files which can further limit the number
of pass-through devices. The Chapter 9 allows RISC-V platforms
to support large number of pass-through devices by defining "MRIF
- memory resident interrupt files" for an IOMMU. Further, the MRIFs
defined by Chapter 9 are simply interrupt files located in main memory
and have nothing to do with AIA local interrupt CSRs (Smaia and Ssaia).

The presence of S*aia in ISA string only implies that AIA extended
local interrupt CSRs are implemented by the underlying RISC-V
implementation.

I confirm that it is certainly not mandatory for a RISC-V platform to
implement Chapter 9 of the AIA specification if the RISC-V platform
already implements AIA and IOMMU.

>
> > > I thought that would be handled by extension versions, but I am told
> > > that those are not a thing any more.
> > > If that's not true, and there'll be a version number that we can pull in
> > > from a DT and parse which will distinguish between the two, then please
> > > correct my misunderstanding here!

Regards,
Anup

Powered by blists - more mailing lists