lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Feb]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] iommu/dma: Allow drivers to reserve an iova range
On 2020-02-19 03:15, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 05:57:18PM -0800, isaacm@codeaurora.org wrote:
>> On 2020-02-17 07:50, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> > On 17/02/2020 8:01 am, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 02:58:16PM -0800, Isaac J. Manjarres wrote:
>> > > > From: Liam Mark <lmark@codeaurora.org>
>> > > >
>> > > > Some devices have a memory map which contains gaps or holes.
>> > > > In order for the device to have as much IOVA space as possible,
>> > > > allow its driver to inform the DMA-IOMMU layer that it should
>> > > > not allocate addresses from these holes.
>> > >
>> > > Layering violation. dma-iommu is the translation layer between the
>> > > DMA API and the IOMMU API. And calls into it from drivers performing
>> > > DMA mappings need to go through the DMA API (and be documented there).
>> >
>> > +1
>> >
>> > More than that, though, we already have "holes in the address space"
>> > support for the sake of PCI host bridge windows - assuming this is the
>> > same kind of thing (i.e. the holes are between memory regions and
>> > other resources in PA space, so are only relevant once address
>> > translation comes into the picture), then this is IOMMU API level
>> To make sure that we're on the same page, this support alludes to the
>> handling in
>> dma-iommu.c that reserves portions of the IOVA space for the PCI host
>> bridge
>> windows,
>> correct? If so, then yes, this is similar.
>> > stuff, so even a DMA API level interface would be inappropriate.
>> Does this mean that the driver should be managing the IOVA space and
>> mappings for this device using the IOMMU API? If so, is the rationale
>> for
>> this because the device driver can have the information of what IOVA
>> ranges
>> can and cannot be used? Shouldn't there be a generic way of informing
>> an
>> IOMMU driver about these reserved ranges? Perhaps through a device
>> tree
>> property, instead of deferring this type of management to the driver?
>
> Before we dive into designing that, can you please clarify whether the
> reserved IOVA range applies to all DMA masters mastering through a
> particular SMMU, or whether it's just about one specific master? I was
> assuming the former, but wanted to be sure.
>
This situation currently applies to one master.
> Thanks,
>
> Will

Thanks,
Isaac

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-02-19 21:06    [W:0.048 / U:0.356 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site