Re: [RFC PATCH 6/6] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Avoid ILLEGAL setting of STE.S1STALLD and CD.S

From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@huawei.com>
Cc: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe.brucker@arm.com>,
	joro@8bytes.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com,
	lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com, hanjun.guo@linaro.org,
	sudeep.holla@arm.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net, lenb@kernel.org,
	robin.murphy@arm.com, robert.moore@intel.com, lv.zheng@intel.com,
	iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devel@acpica.org,
	liubo95@huawei.com, chenjiankang1@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 6/6] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Avoid ILLEGAL setting of STE.S1STALLD and CD.S
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 18:11:59 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170913171159.GB14955@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2f952821-afc3-46dd-17eb-40e8626bd6e5@huawei.com>

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 06:11:13PM +0800, Yisheng Xie wrote:
> On 2017/9/13 11:06, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 01:54:19PM +0100, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> >> On 31/08/17 09:20, Yisheng Xie wrote:
> >>> It is ILLEGAL to set STE.S1STALLD if STALL_MODEL is not 0b00, which
> >>> means we should not disable stall mode if stall/terminate mode is not
> >>> configuable.
> >>>
> >>> Meanwhile, it is also ILLEGAL when STALL_MODEL==0b10 && CD.S==0 which
> >>> means if stall mode is force we should always set CD.S.
> >>>
> >>> This patch add ARM_SMMU_FEAT_TERMINATE feature bit for smmu, and use
> >>> TERMINATE feature checking to ensue above ILLEGAL cases from happening.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@huawei.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>  drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++------
> >>>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
> >>> index dbda2eb..0745522 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
> >>> @@ -55,6 +55,7 @@
> >>>  #define IDR0_STALL_MODEL_SHIFT		24
> >>>  #define IDR0_STALL_MODEL_MASK		0x3
> >>>  #define IDR0_STALL_MODEL_STALL		(0 << IDR0_STALL_MODEL_SHIFT)
> >>> +#define IDR0_STALL_MODEL_NS		(1 << IDR0_STALL_MODEL_SHIFT)
> >>>  #define IDR0_STALL_MODEL_FORCE		(2 << IDR0_STALL_MODEL_SHIFT)
> >>>  #define IDR0_TTENDIAN_SHIFT		21
> >>>  #define IDR0_TTENDIAN_MASK		0x3
> >>> @@ -766,6 +767,7 @@ struct arm_smmu_device {
> >>>  #define ARM_SMMU_FEAT_SVM		(1 << 15)
> >>>  #define ARM_SMMU_FEAT_HA		(1 << 16)
> >>>  #define ARM_SMMU_FEAT_HD		(1 << 17)
> >>> +#define ARM_SMMU_FEAT_TERMINATE		(1 << 18)
> >>
> >> I'd rather introduce something like "ARM_SMMU_FEAT_STALL_FORCE" instead.
> >> Terminate model has another meaning, and is defined by a different bit in
> >> IDR0.
> > 
> > Yes. What we need to do is:
> > 
> > - If STALL_MODEL is 0b00, then set S1STALLD
> 
> Yes, and within this case, we can only set the S1STALLD for masters which can
> not stall in the future?

Yeah, something like that. I'd probably predicate it on having afault
handler registered too.

Will