Message-ID: <9595ad86-ecdc-e613-1b34-113b8c3123cd@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Sep 2023 15:19:20 +0100
From:   Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To:     Alexandre Bailon <abailon@...libre.com>,
        Yong Wu (吴勇) <Yong.Wu@...iatek.com>,
        "joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
        "will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     "linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org" <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
        "matthias.bgg@...il.com" <matthias.bgg@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] iommu: mediatek: Add support of unmanaged iommu
 domain

On 2023-09-14 09:07, Alexandre Bailon wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Sorry for long delay before the response.
> 
> On 2/14/23 06:48, Yong Wu (吴勇) wrote:
>> On Tue, 2023-01-31 at 16:31 +0100, Alexandre Bailon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 1/31/23 15:15, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>>> On 31/01/2023 1:08 pm, Alexandre Bailon wrote:
>>>>> Hi Robin
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/30/23 13:04, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-01-30 10:27, Alexandre Bailon wrote:
>>>>>>> Currently, the driver can allocate an unmanaged iommu domain.
>>>>>>> But, this only works for SoC having multiple bank or multiple
>>>>>>> iova
>>>>>>> region.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is for good reason - there is only a single pagetable per
>>>>>> bank,
>>>>>> so if there are multiple devices assigned to a single bank,
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> cannot possibly be attached to different domains at the same
>>>>>> time.
>>>>>> Hence why the banks are modelled as groups.
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand.
>>>>> I am trying to upstream a remoteproc driver but the remote
>>>>> processor is
>>>>> behind the iommu.
>>>>> remoteproc can manage the iommu but it requires an unmanaged
>>>>> domain.
>>>>> I tried a couple of things but this cause code duplication,
>>>>> implies many hacks and not always reliable.
>>>>> Do you have any suggestion ?
>>>>
>>>> If there are other active devices behind the same IOMMU, and the
>>>> remoteproc device cannot be isolated into its own bank using the
>>>> existing IOMMU driver logic, then the remoteproc driver cannot
>>>> manage
>>>> the IOMMU directly, and must just use the regular DMA API. There's
>>>> no
>>>> way around it; you can't have two different parts of the kernel
>>>> both
>>>> thinking they have exclusive control of a single IOMMU address
>>>> space at
>>>> the same time. Similarly, remoteproc also cannot take explicit
>>>> control
>>>> of a multi-device group if it's not actually in control of the
>>>> other
>>>> devices, since their drivers will not be expecting the DMA address
>>>> space
>>>> to suddenly change underfoot - that's why iommu_attach_device() has
>>>> the
>>>> check which you presumably ran into.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, we can't just use the regular DMA API.
>>> Basically, the firmware use static addresses (and the remote core is
>>> only supposed to access addresses between 0x60000000 and 0x70000000).
>>> When we use DMA API, we get a random address that doesn't match what
>>> the
>>> firmware would expect.
>>> remoteproc use directly the iommu API to map physical address to the
>>> static address expected by the firmware when DMA API can't be use.
>>
>> If this master can only support this special address, We could handle
>> it inside this driver.
>>
>> Could you help try to add these two patches [3/11] and [4/11]?
>>
>> [3/11]
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-mediatek/patch/20230214031114.926-4-yong.wu@mediatek.com/
>> [4/11]
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-mediatek/patch/20230214031114.926-5-yong.wu@mediatek.com/
>>
>>
>> and, then add the logical for mt8365(I see the APU is larb0 port10/11
>> in the binding):
>> --------------------------------
>>
>> +#define MT8365_REGION_NR        2
>> +
>> +static const struct mtk_iommu_iova_region
>> mt8365_multi_rgn[MT8365_REGION_NR] = {
>> +    { .iova_base = 0x0,        .size = SZ_4G},           /* 0 ~
>> 4G. */
>> +    { .iova_base = 0x60000000,    .size = SZ_256M},      /* APU
>> */
>> +};
>> +
>>
>> xxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> +static const unsigned int
>> mt8365_larb_region_msk[MT8365_REGION_NR][MTK_LARB_NR_MAX] = {
>> +    [0] = {~(u32)(BIT(10) | BIT(11)), ~0, ~0, ~0, ~0, ~0},
>> +    [1] = {[0] = BIT(10) | BIT(11)},
>> +};
>> +
>>   static const struct mtk_iommu_plat_data mt8365_data = {
>>       .m4u_plat    = M4U_MT8365,
>>       .flags        = RESET_AXI | INT_ID_PORT_WIDTH_6,
>>       .inv_sel_reg    = REG_MMU_INV_SEL_GEN1,
>>       .banks_num    = 1,
>>       .banks_enable    = {true},
>> -    .iova_region    = single_domain,
>> -    .iova_region_nr    = ARRAY_SIZE(single_domain),
>> +    .iova_region    = mt8365_multi_rgn,
>> +    .iova_region_nr    = ARRAY_SIZE(mt8365_multi_rgn),
>> +    .iova_region_larb_msk = mt8365_larb_region_msk,
>>       .larbid_remap    = {{0}, {1}, {2}, {3}, {4}, {5}}, /* Linear
>> mapping. */
>>   };
>> --------------------------------
>>
>> After that, If we call DMA API with the device whose dtsi has
>> M4U_PORT_APU_READ/M4U_PORT_APU_WRITE. The iova should be located at
>> that special address. Sorry, I have no board to test.
>>
> 
> I have not yet tested the patches but it will only address one part of 
> the problem.
> Using your patches, I could allocate some shared memory using DMA API 
> but the main issue still remain.
> The firmware is not relocatable at all. So, once the firmware is built, 
> it is expected to be loaded at a specific address.
> Remoteproc framework support this use case. Using the resource table, 
> the firmware expose to remoteproc what device address is expect and 
> remoteproc manually call iommu_map to satisfy this requirement.
> Using DMA_API, I could allocate the memory to load the firmware but I 
> could not be sure that the DMA address will be the one expected by 
> firmware.

I think the solution to this is now to use the new DT binding to require 
an IOMMU identity mapping of the firmware region[1], such that it's all 
taken care of for you.

Thanks,
Robin.

[1] https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/c/af0d81357cc5

Powered by blists - more mailing lists