Re: [PATCH V8 07/11] iommu: of: Handle IOMMU lookup failure with deferred probing or error

[Sricharan R <sricharan@codeaurora.org>]

Hi,

On 5/3/2017 3:54 PM, Sricharan R wrote:
> Hi Robin,
> 
> On 5/3/2017 3:24 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> Hi Geert,
>>
>> On 02/05/17 19:35, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>> Hi Sricharan,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Sricharan R <sricharan@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>>>> From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com>
>>>>
>>>> Failures to look up an IOMMU when parsing the DT iommus property need to
>>>> be handled separately from the .of_xlate() failures to support deferred
>>>> probing.
>>>>
>>>> The lack of a registered IOMMU can be caused by the lack of a driver for
>>>> the IOMMU, the IOMMU device probe not having been performed yet, having
>>>> been deferred, or having failed.
>>>>
>>>> The first case occurs when the device tree describes the bus master and
>>>> IOMMU topology correctly but no device driver exists for the IOMMU yet
>>>> or the device driver has not been compiled in. Return NULL, the caller
>>>> will configure the device without an IOMMU.
>>>>
>>>> The second and third cases are handled by deferring the probe of the bus
>>>> master device which will eventually get reprobed after the IOMMU.
>>>>
>>>> The last case is currently handled by deferring the probe of the bus
>>>> master device as well. A mechanism to either configure the bus master
>>>> device without an IOMMU or to fail the bus master device probe depending
>>>> on whether the IOMMU is optional or mandatory would be a good
>>>> enhancement.
>>>>
>>>> Tested-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Laurent Pichart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Sricharan R <sricharan@codeaurora.org>
>>>
>>> This patch broke Renesas R-Car Gen3 platforms in renesas-drivers.
>>> As the IOMMU nodes in DT are not yet enabled, all devices having iommus
>>> properties in DT now fail to probe.
>>
>> How exactly do they fail to probe? Per d7b0558230e4, if there are no ops
>> registered then they should merely defer until we reach the point of
>> giving up and ignoring the IOMMU. Is it just that you have no other
>> late-probing drivers or post-init module loads to kick the deferred
>> queue after that point? I did try to find a way to explicitly kick it
>> from a suitably late initcall, but there didn't seem to be any obvious
>> public interface - anyone have any suggestions?
>>
>> I think that's more of a general problem with the probe deferral
>> mechanism itself (I've seen the same thing happen with some of the
>> CoreSight stuff on Juno due to the number of inter-component
>> dependencies) rather than any specific fault of this series.
>>
> 
> I was thinking of an additional check like below to avoid the
> situation ?
> 
> From 499b6e662f60f23740b8880882b0a16f16434501 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Sricharan R <sricharan@codeaurora.org>
> Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 13:16:59 +0530
> Subject: [PATCH] iommu: of: Fix check for returning EPROBE_DEFER
> 
> While returning EPROBE_DEFER for iommu masters
> take in to account of iommu nodes that could be
> marked in DT as 'status=disabled', in which case
> simply return NULL and let the master's probe
> continue rather than deferring.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sricharan R <sricharan@codeaurora.org>
> ---
>  drivers/iommu/of_iommu.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/of_iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/of_iommu.c
> index 9f44ee8..e6e9bec 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/of_iommu.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/of_iommu.c
> @@ -118,6 +118,7 @@ static bool of_iommu_driver_present(struct device_node *np)
> 
>         ops = iommu_ops_from_fwnode(fwnode);
>         if ((ops && !ops->of_xlate) ||
> +           !of_device_is_available(iommu_spec->np) ||
>             (!ops && !of_iommu_driver_present(iommu_spec->np)))
>                 return NULL;
> 

While same as the other 'status=disabled' patch [1], better not to
defer the probe itself in the case ?

[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9681211/

Regards,
 Sricharan

-- 
"QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel