On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 04:56:53PM +0200, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
Le 14/07/2025 à 14:08, Will Deacon a écrit :
On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 10:24:44AM +0200, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
+/* vsi iommu regs address */How does this page-table format relate to the one supported already by
+#define VSI_MMU_CONFIG1_BASE 0x1ac
+#define VSI_MMU_AHB_EXCEPTION_BASE 0x380
+#define VSI_MMU_AHB_CONTROL_BASE 0x388
+#define VSI_MMU_AHB_TLB_ARRAY_BASE_L_BASE 0x38C
+
+/* MMU register offsets */
+#define VSI_MMU_FLUSH_BASE 0x184
+#define VSI_MMU_BIT_FLUSH BIT(4)
+
+#define VSI_MMU_PAGE_FAULT_ADDR 0x380
+#define VSI_MMU_STATUS_BASE 0x384 /* IRQ status */
+
+#define VSI_MMU_BIT_ENABLE BIT(0)
+
+#define VSI_MMU_OUT_OF_BOUND BIT(28)
+/* Irq mask */
+#define VSI_MMU_IRQ_MASK 0x7
+
+#define VSI_DTE_PT_ADDRESS_MASK 0xffffffc0
+#define VSI_DTE_PT_VALID BIT(0)
+
+#define VSI_PAGE_DESC_LO_MASK 0xfffff000
+#define VSI_PAGE_DESC_HI_MASK GENMASK_ULL(39, 32)
+#define VSI_PAGE_DESC_HI_SHIFT (32 - 4)
rockchip-iommu.c? From a quick glance, I suspect this is a derivative
and so ideally we'd be able to have a common implementation of the
page-table code which can be used by both of the drivers.
Similarly:
No they comes from different IP providers, this one is from Verisilicon.
I agree they looks very similar and my first attempt was to add it into
rockchip-iommu code but when doing it I realize that registers addresses
where all different so I had to code all the functions twice.
Understood, and I'm not suggesting to merge the drivers or try to
consolidate the register layouts. What I _am_ saying is that the
in-memory page-table format should be factored out in a way that can
be reused by the two drivers and also that some of the logic (as highlighted
by vsi_iommu_domain_free()) is practically identical between the drivers
and should also be shared.