On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 09:35:14PM +0000, Pranjal Shrivastava wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2025 at 07:54:10AM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > +int arm_vmaster_report_event(struct arm_smmu_vmaster *vmaster, u64 *evt)
> > +{
> > + struct iommu_vevent_arm_smmuv3 vevt;
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + lockdep_assert_held(&vmaster->vsmmu->smmu->streams_mutex);
> > +
> > + vevt.evt[0] = cpu_to_le64((evt[0] & ~EVTQ_0_SID) |
> > + FIELD_PREP(EVTQ_0_SID, vmaster->vsid));
> > + for (i = 1; i < EVTQ_ENT_DWORDS; i++)
> > + vevt.evt[i] = cpu_to_le64(evt[i]);
>
> Just thinking out loud here:
> I understand the goal here is to "emulate" an IOMMU. But I'm just
> wondering if we could report struct events instead of the raw event?
>
> For example, can't we have something like arm_smmu_event here with the
> sid changed to vsid?
>
> Are we taking the raw event since we want to keep the `u64 event_data[]`
> field within `struct iommufd_vevent` generic to all architectures?
The ABIs for vSMMU are defined in the HW languange, e.g. cmd, ste.
Thus, here evt in raw too.
> > - ret = iommu_report_device_fault(master->dev, &fault_evt);
> > + if (event->stall) {
> > + ret = iommu_report_device_fault(master->dev, &fault_evt);
> > + } else {
> > + if (master->vmaster && !event->s2)
> > + ret = arm_vmaster_report_event(master->vmaster, evt);
> > + else
> > + ret = -EFAULT; /* Unhandled events should be pinned */
> > + }
>
> Nit:
> I don't see the `arm_smmu_handle_event` being called elsewhere, is there
> a reason to return -EFAULT instead of -EOPNOTSUPP here?
>
> I think the current behavior here is to return -EOPNOTSUPP if (!event->stall).
> Whereas, what we're doing here is:
> if (event->stall) {
> ...
> /* do legacy stuff */
> ...
> }
>
> else {
> if (master->vmaster && !event->s2)
> arm_vmaster_report_event(vmaster, evt);
> else
> ret = -EFAULT
> }
>
> mutex_unlock(&smmu->streams_mutex);
> return ret;
>
> Thus, we end up returning -EFAULT instead of -EOPNOTSUPP in case
> event->stall == false. I agree that we aren't really checking the return
> value in the evtq_thread handler, but I'm wondering if we should ensure
> that we end up retaining the same behaviour as we have right now?
Oh, it looks like -EOPNOTSUPP should be returned here. Will fix.
Thanks
Nicolin
