Hi Will, On 03/30/2016 05:45 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > Hi Eric, > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 05:37:27PM +0200, Eric Auger wrote: >> On 01/28/2016 03:27 PM, Will Deacon wrote: >>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 03:17:33PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>>> On Thursday 28 January 2016 12:20:58 Robin Murphy wrote: >>>>>> >>>>> Any IDs specified here would only apply to DMA by the "platform device" >>>>> side of the host controller itself (as would an equivalent "iommus" >>>>> property on pcie0 once I finish the SMMUv2 generic binding support I'm >>>>> working on). In terms of PCI devices, the "mmu-masters" property is >>>>> overloaded such that only its existence matters, to identify that there >>>>> _is_ a relationship between the SMMU and the PCI bus(es) behind that >>>>> host controller. >>>> >>>> I wasn't aware that this was actually still specified. I had hoped >>>> we were getting rid of mmu-masters before anyone actually started >>>> using it, but now I see it in ns2.dtsi and fsl-ls2080a.dtsi. >>>> >>>> Does anyone know what happened to the plan to use the iommu DT binding >>>> for the ARM SMMU instead? Do we now have to support both ways indefinitely? >>> >>> We always did -- Seattle used the mmu-masters binding before the generic >>> binding even existed. Robin has been working on patches to get of_xlate >>> up and running, but it got held up by Laurent's series which didn't end >>> up going anywhere. >>> >> Up to now I have used the PCI smmu description as described in Suravee's >> patch and this does not work anymore with 4.6-rc1 since the default >> domain was introduced. So now I see 2 SMRs matching a single streamid >> (in my case 256, one steming from the "platform device" side of the host >> controller and one steming from the PCI device) and this causes SMCF >> (stream match conflict fault). So PCIe PF does not work. > > Sorry about that, it wasn't intentional. In fact, I wrote commit > cbf8277ef456 ("iommu/arm-smmu: Treat IOMMU_DOMAIN_DMA as bypass for now") > specifically to avoid this breakage, after seeing it myself with VFIO > and an S2CR-based configuration. It looks like the check just needs moving > higher up (i.e. before we initialise the SMRs). > > Does that fix it for you? Yes this fixes the issue for me, thanks! I guess you will send that patch? So eventually what is the right way to describe the smmu-masters (~ future of that patch)? Best Regards Eric > > Will > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html