Hi,
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 02:41:21PM +0100, Hiroshi Doyu wrote:
> From: Joerg Roedel <joro@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: IOMMU: Tegra30: Add iommu_ops for SMMU driver
> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:43:10 +0100
> Message-ID: <20120123154310.GC6269@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&as->lock, flags);
> > > +
> > > + domain->priv = NULL;
> > > + dev_dbg(smmu->dev, "smmu_as@%p\n", as);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static int smmu_iommu_attach_dev(struct iommu_domain *domain,
> > > + struct device *dev)
> > > +{
> > > + struct smmu_as *as = domain->priv;
> > > + struct smmu_device *smmu = as->smmu;
> >
> > Hmm, this looks like there is a 1-1 mapping between hardware SMMU
> > devices and domains. This is not consistent with IOMMU-API semantics
> > where a domain can contain devices behind different SMMUs. Please fix
> > that.
>
> Actually I really like the concept of this "domain" now, which hides
> the H/W hierarchy from users.
>
> But in Tegra SMMU/GART case, there's a single one IOMMU device in the
> system. Keeping a iommu device list in a domain and iterating iommu
> device list in each iommu_ops seem to be so nice, but I'm afraid that
> this may be a bit too much when one already knows that there's only
> one IOMMU device in the system.
>
> If there's no actual problem for 1-1 mapping between IOMMU H/Ws and
> domains, I think that it may not so bad to keep the original code(1-1)
> for GART and SMMU. What do you think?
I think it boils down to "extensability". If you can truly/fully
guarantee that there will *always* be a single IOMMU on all upcoming
Tegras, then it's really overkill.
But if there's even a remote possibility of the HW being changed and you
end up with more IOMMUs, things start to feel necessary for the sake of
making it easy to extend.
my 2 cents, feel free to ignore ;-)
--
balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
