On Friday, 27 July 2018 20:16:53 MSK Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > On Friday, 27 July 2018 20:03:26 MSK Jordan Crouse wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 05:02:37PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote: > > > On 27/07/18 15:10, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > > > >On Friday, 27 July 2018 12:03:28 MSK Will Deacon wrote: > > > >>On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 10:25:13AM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote: > > > >>>On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 02:16:18AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > > > >>>>The proposed solution adds a new option to the base device driver > > > >>>>structure that allows device drivers to explicitly convey to the > > > >>>>drivers > > > >>>>core that the implicit IOMMU backing for devices must not happen. > > > >>> > > > >>>Why is IOMMU mapping a problem for the Tegra GPU driver? > > > >>> > > > >>>If we add something like this then it should not be the choice of the > > > >>>device driver, but of the user and/or the firmware. > > > >> > > > >>Agreed, and it would still need somebody to configure an identity > > > >>domain > > > >>so > > > >>that transactions aren't aborted immediately. We currently allow the > > > >>identity domain to be used by default via a command-line option, so I > > > >>guess > > > >>we'd need a way for firmware to request that on a per-device basis. > > > > > > > >The IOMMU mapping itself is not a problem, the problem is the > > > >management > > > >of > > > >the IOMMU. For Tegra we don't want anything to intrude into the IOMMU > > > >activities because: > > > > > > > >1) GPU HW require additional configuration for the IOMMU usage and dumb > > > >mapping of the allocations simply doesn't work. > > > > > > Generally, that's already handled by the DRM drivers allocating > > > their own unmanaged domains. The only problem we really need to > > > solve in that regard is that currently the device DMA ops don't get > > > updated when moving away from the managed domain. That's been OK for > > > the VFIO case where the device is bound to a different driver which > > > we know won't make any explicit DMA API calls, but for the more > > > general case of IOMMU-aware drivers we could certainly do with a bit > > > of cooperation between the IOMMU API, DMA API, and arch code to > > > update the DMA ops dynamically to cope with intermediate subsystems > > > making DMA API calls on behalf of devices they don't know the > > > intimate details of. > > > > > > >2) Older Tegra generations have a limited resource and capabilities in > > > >regards to IOMMU usage, allocating IOMMU domain per-device is just > > > >impossible for example. > > > > > > > >3) HW performs context switches and so particular allocations have to > > > >be > > > >assigned to a particular contexts IOMMU domain. > > > > > > I understand Qualcomm SoCs have a similar thing too, and AFAICS that > > > case just doesn't fit into the current API model at all. We need the > > > IOMMU driver to somehow know about the specific details of which > > > devices have magic associations with specific contexts, and we > > > almost certainly need a more expressive interface than > > > iommu_domain_alloc() to have any hope of reliable results. > > > > This is correct for Qualcomm GPUs - The GPU hardware context switching > > requires a specific context and there are some restrictions around > > secure contexts as well. > > > > We don't really care if the DMA attaches to a context just as long as it > > doesn't attach to the one(s) we care about. Perhaps a "valid context" mask > > would work in from the DT or the device struct to give the subsystems a > > clue as to which domains they were allowed to use. I recognize that there > > isn't a one-size-fits-all solution to this problem so I'm open to > > different > > ideas. > > Designating whether implicit IOMMU backing is appropriate for a device via [snip] [I've noticed that this should've been an answer to different message in the thread..] As of the domain type, I don't think that any domain requirements should be defined via the DT, that should be purely internal to the kernel drivers. Maybe iommu_domain_alloc() could get an additional argument, like some platform-specific domain descriptor. Anyway a custom IOMMU domain type requirements should be a different topic for discussion, at least for now (AFAIK) there is no need for that on Tegra and I can't suggest anything really constructive about it. Though maybe Mikko could give a comment from the Tegra perspective about whether custom domain type requirements could be ever needed on Tegra, what those requirements are and how it could be implemented. _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
