Re: [PATCH 1/5] iommu: Add capability IOMMU_CAP_BYPASS

From	Anup Patel <anup.patel@broadcom.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH 1/5] iommu: Add capability IOMMU_CAP_BYPASS
Date	2017-07-19 13:30 +0200
Message-ID	<u4VkZ-7Rv-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<u4TCy-6D1-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <u4TCz-6D1-39@gated-at.bofh.it> <u4URX-7qy-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <u4Vbl-7Nz-31@gated-at.bofh.it> <u4VkZ-7Rv-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 04:49:00PM +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> wrote:
>> > On 19/07/17 10:33, Anup Patel wrote:
>> >> Some of the IOMMUs (such as ARM SMMU) are capable of bypassing
>> >> transactions for which no IOMMU domain is configured.
>> >>
>> >> This patch adds IOMMU_CAP_BYPASS which can be used by IOMMU
>> >> drivers to advertise transation bypass capability of an IOMMU.
>> >
>> > Whatever the intended semantics of this are, I can't help thinking it
>> > would be better served by allowing callers to explicitly allocate their
>> > own IOMMU_DOMAIN_IDENTITY domains. That would also be useful for the
>> > problem we have with legacy virtio devices behind real IOMMUs.
>>
>> We want to use VFIO no-IOMMU mode for FlexRM device but
>> currently it does not allow on our SOC because IOMMU ops are
>> registered for platform bus.
>
> Why do you want to use no-IOMMU mode if you have an IOMMU, and why you do
> think the individual IOMMU drivers are the place to implement this?
>
> NAK to the SMMU patches, for the reasons outlined by Robin.

We have limited number of SMRs on our SOC.

There are lot of devices for which we can potentially
configure SMMU but then due to limited number of
SMRs so we use SMMU only for certain devices.

For FlexRM device on our SOC, we don't intend to
use SMMU hence we need VFIO no-IOMMU mode
working for FlexRM device on our SOC.

Please re-consider your NAK.

Regards,
Anup

Thread

[PATCH 0/5] FlexRM support in VFIO platform Anup Patel <anup.patel@broadcom.com> - 2017-07-19 11:40 +0200
  [PATCH 1/5] iommu: Add capability IOMMU_CAP_BYPASS Anup Patel <anup.patel@broadcom.com> - 2017-07-19 11:40 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 1/5] iommu: Add capability IOMMU_CAP_BYPASS Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> - 2017-07-19 13:00 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 1/5] iommu: Add capability IOMMU_CAP_BYPASS Anup Patel <anup.patel@broadcom.com> - 2017-07-19 13:20 +0200
        Re: [PATCH 1/5] iommu: Add capability IOMMU_CAP_BYPASS Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> - 2017-07-19 13:30 +0200
        Re: [PATCH 1/5] iommu: Add capability IOMMU_CAP_BYPASS Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2017-07-19 13:30 +0200
          Re: [PATCH 1/5] iommu: Add capability IOMMU_CAP_BYPASS Anup Patel <anup.patel@broadcom.com> - 2017-07-19 13:30 +0200
            Re: [PATCH 1/5] iommu: Add capability IOMMU_CAP_BYPASS Anup Patel <anup.patel@broadcom.com> - 2017-07-19 13:40 +0200
            Re: [PATCH 1/5] iommu: Add capability IOMMU_CAP_BYPASS Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2017-07-19 13:40 +0200
  [PATCH 2/5] iommu/arm-smmu: add IOMMU_CAP_BYPASS to the ARM SMMU driver Anup Patel <anup.patel@broadcom.com> - 2017-07-19 11:40 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 2/5] iommu/arm-smmu: add IOMMU_CAP_BYPASS to the ARM SMMU  driver Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> - 2017-07-19 13:00 +0200
  Re: [PATCH 0/5] FlexRM support in VFIO platform Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> - 2017-07-19 13:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 0/5] FlexRM support in VFIO platform Anup Patel <anup.patel@broadcom.com> - 2017-07-19 13:20 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 0/5] FlexRM support in VFIO platform Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> - 2017-07-19 13:30 +0200
        Re: [PATCH 0/5] FlexRM support in VFIO platform Anup Patel <anup.patel@broadcom.com> - 2017-07-19 13:30 +0200

csiph-web