Re: [PATCH 0/3] Apple M1 DART IOMMU driver

["Sven Peter" <sven@svenpeter.dev>]

Hi Robin,


On Wed, Mar 24, 2021, at 16:29, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2021-03-20 15:19, Sven Peter wrote:
> > 
> > I have just noticed today though that at least the USB DWC3 controller in host
> > mode uses *two* darts at the same time. I'm not sure yet which parts seem to
> > require which DART instance.
> > 
> > This means that we might need to support devices attached to two iommus
> > simultaneously and just create the same iova mappings. Currently this only
> > seems to be required for USB according to Apple's Device Tree.
> > 
> > I see two options for this and would like to get feedback before
> > I implement either one:
> > 
> >      1) Change #iommu-cells = <1>; to #iommu-cells = <2>; and use the first cell
> >         to identify the DART and the second one to identify the master.
> >         The DART DT node would then also take two register ranges that would
> >         correspond to the two DARTs. Both instances use the same IRQ and the
> >         same clocks according to Apple's device tree and my experiments.
> >         This would keep a single device node and the DART driver would then
> >         simply map iovas in both DARTs if required.
> 
> This is broadly similar to the approach used by rockchip-iommu and the 
> special arm-smmu-nvidia implementation, where there are multiple 
> instances which require programming identically, that are abstracted 
> behind a single "device". Your case is a little different since you're 
> not programming both *entirely* identically, although maybe that's a 
> possibility if each respective ID isn't used by anything else on the 
> "other" DART?

That would be possible. The only difference is that I need to
program ID 0 of the first DART and ID 1 of the second one. Both
of these IDs are only connected to the same USB controller.


> 
> Overall I tend to view this approach as a bit of a hack because it's not 
> really describing the hardware truthfully - just because two distinct 
> functional blocks have their IRQ lines wired together doesn't suddenly 
> make them a single monolithic block with multiple interfaces - and tends 
> to be done for the sake of making the driver implementation easier in 
> terms of the Linux IOMMU API (which, note, hasn't evolved all that far 
> from its PCI-centric origins and isn't exactly great for arbitrary SoC 
> topologies).

Yes, the easier driver implementation was my reason to favour this option.

> 
> >      2) Keep #iommu-cells as-is but support
> >              iommus = <&usb_dart1a 1>, <&usb_dart1b 0>;
> >         instead.
> >         This would then require two devices nodes for the two DART instances and
> >         some housekeeping in the DART driver to support mapping iovas in both
> >         DARTs.
> >         I believe omap-iommu.c supports this setup but I will have to read
> >         more code to understand the details there and figure out how to implement
> >         this in a sane way.
> 
> This approach is arguably the most honest, and more robust in terms of 
> making fewer assumptions, and is used by at least exynos-iommu and 
> omap-iommu. In Linux it currently takes a little bit more housekeeping 
> to keep track of linked instances within the driver since the IOMMU API 
> holds the notion that any given client device is associated with "an 
> IOMMU", but that's always free to change at any time, unlike the design 
> of a DT binding.

Sounds good. I'll read those drivers and give it a try for v2.


Thanks,


Sven