Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 25 Jul 2022 10:52:40 +0100 | From | Jean-Philippe Brucker <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v10 08/12] iommu/sva: Refactoring iommu_sva_bind/unbind_device() |
| |
On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 05:33:05PM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote: > Hi Jean, > > On 2022/7/25 15:39, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 24, 2022 at 09:48:15PM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote: > > > /* > > > * iommu_detach_device_pasid() - Detach the domain from pasid of device > > > * @domain: the iommu domain. > > > * @dev: the attached device. > > > * @pasid: the pasid of the device. > > > * > > > * The @domain must have been attached to @pasid of the @dev with > > > * iommu_detach_device_pasid(). > > > */ > > > void iommu_detach_device_pasid(struct iommu_domain *domain, struct device > > > *dev, > > > ioasid_t pasid) > > > { > > > struct iommu_group *group = iommu_group_get(dev); > > > struct group_pasid *param; > > > > > > mutex_lock(&group->mutex); > > > domain->ops->set_dev_pasid(group->blocking_domain, dev, pasid); > > Please also pass the old domain to this detach() function, so that the > > IOMMU driver doesn't have to keep track of them internally. > > The iommu core provides the interface to retrieve attached domain with a > {device, pasid} pair. Therefore in the smmuv3 driver, the set_dev_pasid > could do like this:
Thanks for the example, yes I can do something like this. I maintain that attach+detach is clearer, but as long as it can be made to work, fine by me
Thanks, Jean
> > +static int arm_smmu_sva_set_dev_pasid(struct iommu_domain *domain, > + struct device *dev, ioasid_t id) > +{ > + int ret = 0; > + struct mm_struct *mm; > + struct iommu_sva *handle; > + > + /* > + * Detach the domain if a blocking domain is set. Check the > + * right domain type once the IOMMU driver supports a real > + * blocking domain. > + */ > + if (!domain || domain->type == IOMMU_DOMAIN_UNMANAGED) { > + struct pasid_iommu *param; > + > + param = iommu_device_pasid_param(dev, id); > + if (!param || !param->domain) > + return -EINVAL; > + arm_smmu_sva_block_dev_pasid(param->domain, dev, id); > + > + return 0; > + } > + > + mm = domain->mm; > + mutex_lock(&sva_lock); > + handle = __arm_smmu_sva_bind(dev, mm); > + if (IS_ERR(handle)) > + ret = PTR_ERR(handle); > + mutex_unlock(&sva_lock); > + > + return ret; > +} > > The check of "(!domain || domain->type == IOMMU_DOMAIN_UNMANAGED)" looks > odd, but could get cleaned up after a real blocking domain is added. > Then, we can simply check "domain->type == IOMMU_DOMAIN_BLOCKING".
| |