On 01/07/16 11:55, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 04:48:25PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> Introduce a common structure to hold the per-device firmware data that
>> non-architectural IOMMU drivers generally need to keep track of.
>> Initially this is DT-specific to complement the existing of_iommu
>> support code, but will generalise further once other firmware methods
>> (e.g. ACPI IORT) come along.
>>
>> Ultimately the aim is to promote the fwspec to a first-class member of
>> struct device, and handle the init/free automatically in the firmware
>> code. That way we can have API calls look for dev->fwspec->iommu_ops
>> before falling back to dev->bus->iommu_ops, and thus gracefully handle
>> those troublesome multi-IOMMU systems which we currently cannot. To
>> start with, though, make use of the existing archdata field and delegate
>> the init/free to drivers to allow an incremental conversion rather than
>> the impractical pain of trying to attempt everything in one go.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>
>> v3: New.
>>
>> drivers/iommu/of_iommu.c | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> include/linux/of_iommu.h | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 65 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/of_iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/of_iommu.c
>> index 25406a8b9d4e..2b90c1f56ff2 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iommu/of_iommu.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/of_iommu.c
>> @@ -220,3 +220,50 @@ void __init of_iommu_init(void)
>> of_node_full_name(np));
>> }
>> }
>> +
>> +int iommu_fwspec_init(struct device *dev, struct device_node *iommu_np)
>
> These functions might want an of_* prefix to match the rest of the file,
> or do you plan to re-use these later for ACPI?
Indeed, the naming is a deliberate concession to the future - I was
trying to pre-empt the idea that the interface might be intended to grow
into separate of_* and iort_* versions. I'm just using raw device_nodes
for the moment as I don't think we'd reached a consensus on whether
fwnode_handle or some other abstraction was the appropriate way to go.
>> diff --git a/include/linux/of_iommu.h b/include/linux/of_iommu.h
>> index bd02b44902d0..5a4f516cfcfe 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/of_iommu.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/of_iommu.h
>> @@ -15,6 +15,14 @@ extern void of_iommu_init(void);
>> extern const struct iommu_ops *of_iommu_configure(struct device *dev,
>> struct device_node *master_np);
>>
>> +struct iommu_fwspec {
>> + const struct iommu_ops *iommu_ops;
>> + struct device_node *iommu_np;
>> + void *iommu_priv;
>> + unsigned int num_ids;
>> + u32 ids[];
>> +};
>> +
>> #else
>>
>> static inline int of_get_dma_window(struct device_node *dn, const char *prefix,
>> @@ -31,8 +39,18 @@ static inline const struct iommu_ops *of_iommu_configure(struct device *dev,
>> return NULL;
>> }
>>
>> +struct iommu_fwspec;
>> +
>> #endif /* CONFIG_OF_IOMMU */
>>
>> +int iommu_fwspec_init(struct device *dev, struct device_node *iommu_np);
>> +void iommu_fwspec_free(struct device *dev);
>> +int iommu_fwspec_add_ids(struct device *dev, u32 *ids, int num_ids);
>> +static inline struct iommu_fwspec *dev_iommu_fwspec(struct device *dev)
>> +{
>> + return dev->archdata.iommu;
>> +}
>
> I'm a bit nervous about putting this inline in a header file, since not
> all architectures unconditionally provide the iommu field in dev_archdata.
Ah yes, you're right, this shouldn't be defined without OF_IOMMU (or the
IORT equivalent) anyway. Clearly the premature optimisation demons had
begun whispering "A measly one-line accessor in a separate compilation
unit? Won't somebody think of the chil^Wbranch predictors!?"
Robin.
>
> 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
