Re: [PATCH 08/10] iommu/tegra: Use tegra_dev_iommu_get_stream_id() in the remaining places

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 03:26:03PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 05:23:13PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/memory/tegra/tegra186.c b/drivers/memory/tegra/tegra186.c
> > > index 533f85a4b2bdb7..3e4fbe94dd666e 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/memory/tegra/tegra186.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/memory/tegra/tegra186.c
> > > @@ -111,21 +111,21 @@ static void tegra186_mc_client_sid_override(struct tegra_mc *mc,
> > >  static int tegra186_mc_probe_device(struct tegra_mc *mc, struct device *dev)
> > >  {
> > > -	struct iommu_fwspec *fwspec = dev_iommu_fwspec_get(dev);
> > >  	struct of_phandle_args args;
> > >  	unsigned int i, index = 0;
> > > +	u32 sid;
> > >  
> > > +	WARN_ON(!tegra_dev_iommu_get_stream_id(dev, &sid));
> > 
> > I know the code previously didn't check for any errors, but we may want
> > to do so now. If tegra_dev_iommu_get_stream_id() ever fails we may end
> > up writing some undefined value into the override register.
> My assumption was it never fails otherwise this probably already
> doesn't work?

I guess the point I was trying to make is that previously we would not
have written anything to the stream ID register and so ignoring the
error here might end up writing to a register that previously we would
not have written to. Looking at the current code more closely I see now
that the reason why we wouldn't have written to the register is because
we would've crashed before.

So I think this okay.

> > I'm also unsure if WARN_ON() is appropriate here. I vaguely recall that
> > ->probe_device() was called for all devices on the bus and not all of
> > them may have been associated with the IOMMU. Not all of them may in
> > fact access memory in the first place.
> So you are thinkin that of_parse_phandle_with_args() is a NOP
> sometimes so it will tolerate the failure?
> Seems like the best thing to do is just continue to ignore it then?

Yeah, exactly. It would've just skipped over everything, basically.

> > Perhaps I'm misremembering and the IOMMU core now takes care of only
> > calling this when fwspec is indeed valid?
> Can't advise, I have no idea what tegra_mc_ops is for :)

In a nutshell, it's a hook that allows us to configure the memory
controller when a device is attached to the IOMMU. The memory controller
contains a set of registers that specify which memory client uses which
stream ID by default. For some devices this can be overridden (which is
where tegra_dev_iommu_get_stream_id() comes into play in those drivers)
and for other devices we can't override, which is when the memory
controller defaults come into play.

Anyway, I took a closer look at this and ran some tests. Turns out that
tegra186_mc_probe_device() really only gets called for devices that have
their fwspec properly initialized anyway, so I don't think there's
anything special we need to do here.

Strictly from a static analysis point of view I suppose we could now
have a situation that sid is uninitialized when the call to
tegra_dev_iommu_get_stream_id() fails and so using it in the loop is not
correct, theoretically, but I think that's just not a case that we'll
ever hit in practice.

So either way is fine with me. I have a slight preference for just
returning 0 in case tegra_dev_iommu_get_stream_id() fails, because it's
simple to do and avoids any of these (theoretical) ambiguities. So
whichever way you decide:

Reviewed-by: Thierry Reding <treding@xxxxxxxxxx>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[Index of Archives]     [LKML Archive]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Git]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Hams]

  Powered by Linux