Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] bus: fsl-mc: add custom .dma_configure implementation

[Laurentiu Tudor]

On 4/15/2020 7:04 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 06:44:37PM +0300, Laurentiu Tudor wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 4/14/2020 5:32 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 06:48:55PM +0200, Laurentiu Tudor wrote:
>>>> Hi Lorenzo,
>>>>
>>>> On 3/25/2020 2:51 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 12:05:39PM +0200, laurentiu.tudor@xxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>>> From: Laurentiu Tudor <laurentiu.tudor@xxxxxxx>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The devices on this bus are not discovered by way of device tree
>>>>>> but by queries to the firmware. It makes little sense to trick the
>>>>>> generic of layer into thinking that these devices are of related so
>>>>>> that we can get our dma configuration. Instead of doing that, add
>>>>>> our custom dma configuration implementation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Laurentiu Tudor <laurentiu.tudor@xxxxxxx>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>  drivers/bus/fsl-mc/fsl-mc-bus.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>>>>  1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/bus/fsl-mc/fsl-mc-bus.c b/drivers/bus/fsl-mc/fsl-mc-bus.c
>>>>>> index 36eb25f82c8e..eafaa0e0b906 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/bus/fsl-mc/fsl-mc-bus.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/bus/fsl-mc/fsl-mc-bus.c
>>>>>> @@ -132,11 +132,40 @@ static int fsl_mc_bus_uevent(struct device *dev, struct kobj_uevent_env *env)
>>>>>>  static int fsl_mc_dma_configure(struct device *dev)
>>>>>>  {
>>>>>>  	struct device *dma_dev = dev;
>>>>>> +	struct iommu_fwspec *fwspec;
>>>>>> +	const struct iommu_ops *iommu_ops;
>>>>>> +	struct fsl_mc_device *mc_dev = to_fsl_mc_device(dev);
>>>>>> +	int ret;
>>>>>> +	u32 icid;
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  	while (dev_is_fsl_mc(dma_dev))
>>>>>>  		dma_dev = dma_dev->parent;
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> -	return of_dma_configure(dev, dma_dev->of_node, 0);
>>>>>> +	fwspec = dev_iommu_fwspec_get(dma_dev);
>>>>>> +	if (!fwspec)
>>>>>> +		return -ENODEV;
>>>>>> +	iommu_ops = iommu_ops_from_fwnode(fwspec->iommu_fwnode);
>>>>>> +	if (!iommu_ops)
>>>>>> +		return -ENODEV;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	ret = iommu_fwspec_init(dev, fwspec->iommu_fwnode, iommu_ops);
>>>>>> +	if (ret)
>>>>>> +		return ret;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	icid = mc_dev->icid;
>>>>>> +	ret = iommu_fwspec_add_ids(dev, &icid, 1);
>>>>>
>>>>> I see. So with this patch we would use the MC named component only to
>>>>> retrieve the iommu_ops
>>>>
>>>> Right. I'd also add that the implementation tries to follow the existing
>>>> standard .dma_configure implementations, e.g. of_dma_configure +
>>>> of_iommu_configure. I'd also note that similarly to the ACPI case, this
>>>> MC FW device is probed as a platform device in the DT scenario, binding
>>>> here [1].
>>>> A similar approach is used for the retrieval of the msi irq domain, see
>>>> following patch.
>>>>
>>>>> - the streamid are injected directly here bypassing OF/IORT bindings translations altogether. 
>>>>
>>>> Actually I've submitted a v2 [2] that calls into .of_xlate() to allow
>>>> the smmu driver to do some processing on the raw streamid coming from
>>>> the firmware. I have not yet tested this with ACPI but expect it to
>>>> work, however, it's debatable how valid is this approach in the context
>>>> of ACPI.
>>>
>>> Actually, what I think you need is of_map_rid() (and an IORT
>>> equivalent, that I am going to write - generalizing iort_msi_map_rid()).
>>>
>>> Would that be enough to enable IORT "normal" mappings in the MC bus
>>> named components ?
>>>
>>
>> At a first glance, looks like this could very well fix the ACPI
>> scenario, but I have some unclarities on the approach:
>>  * are we going to rely in DT and ACPI generic layers even if these
>> devices are not published / enumerated through DT or ACPI tables?
>>  * the firmware manages and provides discrete streamids for the devices
>> it exposes so there's no translation involved. There's no
>>    requestor_id / input_id involved but it seems that we would still do
>> some kind of translation relying for this on the DT/ACPI functions.
>>  * MC firmware has its own stream_id (e.g. on some chips 0x4000, others
>> 0xf00, so outside the range of stream_ids used for the mc devices)
>>    while for the devices on this bus, MC allocates stream_ids from a
>> range (e.g. 0x17 - 0x3f). Is it possible to describe this in the IORT table?
>>  * Regarding the of_map_rid() use you mentioned, I was planning to
>> decouple the mc bus from the DT layer by dropping the use of
>> of_map_rid(), see patch 4.
>> I briefly glanced over the iort code and spotted this static function:
>> iort_iommu_xlate(). Wouldn't it also help, of course after making it public?
> 
> Guys I have lost you honestly. I don't understand what you really need
> to do with DT and ACPI here. Are they needed to describe what you need
> or not ? If the MC dma configure function does not need any DT/ACPI
> bindings that's fine by me, I don't understand though why you are still
> asking how to represent MC in ACPI then, what for.
> 

Sorry for the stress and all this back and forth. Perhaps it's due to my
lack of understanding why we would need this translation complexity.
We'll return with a proposal in the next spin of the patches so we have
something concrete to discuss on.
---
Thanks & Best Regards, Laurentiu