On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 04:24:44PM +0000, Mostafa Saleh wrote:
> > +void *arm_smmu_hw_info(struct device *dev, u32 *length, u32 *type)
> > +{
> > + struct arm_smmu_master *master = dev_iommu_priv_get(dev);
> > + struct iommu_hw_info_arm_smmuv3 *info;
> > + u32 __iomem *base_idr;
> > + unsigned int i;
> > +
> > + info = kzalloc(sizeof(*info), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!info)
> > + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> > +
> > + base_idr = master->smmu->base + ARM_SMMU_IDR0;
> > + for (i = 0; i <= 5; i++)
> > + info->idr[i] = readl_relaxed(base_idr + i);
> > + info->iidr = readl_relaxed(master->smmu->base + ARM_SMMU_IIDR);
> > + info->aidr = readl_relaxed(master->smmu->base + ARM_SMMU_AIDR);
>
> I wonder if passing the IDRs is enough for the VMM, for example in some
> cases, firmware can override the coherency, also the IIDR can override
> some features (as MMU700 and BTM), although, the VMM can deal with.
I'm confident it is not enough
BTM support requires special kernel vBTM support which will need a
dedicated flag someday
ATS is linked to the kernel per-device enable_ats, that will have to
flow to ACPI/etc tables on a per-device basis
PRI is linked to the ability to attach a fault capable domain..
And so on.
Nicolin, what do your qemu patches even use IIDR for today?
It wouldn't surprise me if we end up only using a few bits of the raw
physical information.
> Maybe for those(coherency, ATS, PRI) we would need to keep the VMM view and
> the kernel in sync?
Definately
Jason
