[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [XEN v5 04/10] xen/arm: smmu: Use writeq_relaxed_non_atomic() for writing to SMMU_CBn_TTBR0


  • To: Ayan Kumar Halder <ayan.kumar.halder@xxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2023 09:57:12 +0200
  • Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass (sender ip is 165.204.84.17) smtp.rcpttodomain=lists.xenproject.org smtp.mailfrom=amd.com; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine sp=quarantine pct=100) action=none header.from=amd.com; dkim=none (message not signed); arc=none
  • Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=aaLKSLBlH0pmitOGlaO7/UUHDoX6HYuf9NHfmDDiTwM=; b=DLcyBSX+sObCl78qpBLdCwIBLlg0tY0fo0oBqdlwjwEdW3OM2p0YP6HJk+MWa+hvMM53EOACwtVm8hoxPCZzz/0wZcVRJE5BWY70lJG/qLEJ5ZQAEaNNOTy9Q8Fp7meNJX6Yhzu9vwMaCVZ5Q26XMtt8F0jaJtAlwDwGgjDccgxxSUPhsXoWNhfNu7tsWoTXpXaKgwiS+oWe8tIgjx+MVvvE1JZLtj1i1wOV99oUkcpw/9QbgVXR+dFb2mEm7VCVhYXx33uRBxu2Q53Dtc+aqYFf3SZcJsjAL4lDba9gpL8zzJMIKwguUp/P4M0cZxisqSdhko9mok2UDUm5a3iCUQ==
  • Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=n6F1h4KR6c1oMdejEprt5Ro/cJdRWDvp4+s+i/+CxYMEp4s10mlHujkgeiLgERafjmt1QNzjjuMeBbDKtTJDxBb0KR1hlsXatBzcJAWPu4Rx3u3Efpn8eiKMw6kbwJ9+e8tBZbW2rxumWPpk66HU3DhZHsqQAHpTqQLMsx1feJEG87uCZSy/WvaqClrRY7M2divkrQqSIFR+xXdDXqEBgpwQHGsvcenDHFuakHZk5iqKzN1vNzje1mfxMdtc3QD3dhd/5TySXKbnx8EmXbqAGnzqK7tJkAkpPATJV85GeW8dc5R/QKQ+J7h31ID2OSHzye8t+SykSLonuqNPzb4aBw==
  • Cc: <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxx>, <julien@xxxxxxx>, <Volodymyr_Babchuk@xxxxxxxx>, <bertrand.marquis@xxxxxxx>, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>, <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>, <wl@xxxxxxx>, <rahul.singh@xxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Fri, 21 Apr 2023 07:57:32 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

Hi Ayan,

On 13/04/2023 19:37, Ayan Kumar Halder wrote:
> 
> 
> Refer ARM IHI 0062D.c ID070116 (SMMU 2.0 spec), 17-360, 17.3.9,
> SMMU_CBn_TTBR0 is a 64 bit register. Thus, one can use
> writeq_relaxed_non_atomic() to write to it instead of invoking
> writel_relaxed() twice for lower half and upper half of the register.
> 
> This also helps us as p2maddr is 'paddr_t' (which may be u32 in future).
> Thus, one can assign p2maddr to a 64 bit register and do the bit
> manipulations on it, to generate the value for SMMU_CBn_TTBR0.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ayan Kumar Halder <ayan.kumar.halder@xxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Changes from -
> 
> v1 - 1. Extracted the patch from "[XEN v1 8/9] xen/arm: Other adaptations 
> required to support 32bit paddr".
> Use writeq_relaxed_non_atomic() to write u64 register in a non-atomic
> fashion.
> 
> v2 - 1. Added R-b.
> 
> v3 - 1. No changes.
> 
> v4 - 1. Reordered the R-b. No further changes.
> (This patch can be committed independent of the series).
> 
>  xen/drivers/passthrough/arm/smmu.c | 15 ++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/xen/drivers/passthrough/arm/smmu.c 
> b/xen/drivers/passthrough/arm/smmu.c
> index 79281075ba..c8ef2a925f 100644
> --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/arm/smmu.c
> +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/arm/smmu.c
> @@ -499,8 +499,7 @@ enum arm_smmu_s2cr_privcfg {
>  #define ARM_SMMU_CB_SCTLR              0x0
>  #define ARM_SMMU_CB_RESUME             0x8
>  #define ARM_SMMU_CB_TTBCR2             0x10
> -#define ARM_SMMU_CB_TTBR0_LO           0x20
> -#define ARM_SMMU_CB_TTBR0_HI           0x24
> +#define ARM_SMMU_CB_TTBR0              0x20
>  #define ARM_SMMU_CB_TTBCR              0x30
>  #define ARM_SMMU_CB_S1_MAIR0           0x38
>  #define ARM_SMMU_CB_FSR                        0x58
> @@ -1083,6 +1082,7 @@ static void arm_smmu_flush_pgtable(struct 
> arm_smmu_device *smmu, void *addr,
>  static void arm_smmu_init_context_bank(struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain)
>  {
>         u32 reg;
> +       u64 reg64;
Shouldn't you be using uint64_t? Also ...

>         bool stage1;
>         struct arm_smmu_cfg *cfg = &smmu_domain->cfg;
>         struct arm_smmu_device *smmu = smmu_domain->smmu;
> @@ -1177,12 +1177,13 @@ static void arm_smmu_init_context_bank(struct 
> arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain)
>         dev_notice(smmu->dev, "d%u: p2maddr 0x%"PRIpaddr"\n",
>                    smmu_domain->cfg.domain->domain_id, p2maddr);
> 
> -       reg = (p2maddr & ((1ULL << 32) - 1));
> -       writel_relaxed(reg, cb_base + ARM_SMMU_CB_TTBR0_LO);
> -       reg = (p2maddr >> 32);
> +       reg64 = p2maddr;
> +
>         if (stage1)
> -               reg |= ARM_SMMU_CB_ASID(cfg) << TTBRn_HI_ASID_SHIFT;
> -       writel_relaxed(reg, cb_base + ARM_SMMU_CB_TTBR0_HI);
> +               reg64 |= (((uint64_t) (ARM_SMMU_CB_ASID(cfg) << 
> TTBRn_HI_ASID_SHIFT))
... here you use uint64_t for a cast and not u64

~Michal



 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.