[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 17:27:36 +0100
From: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Tomasz Nowicki <tn@...ihalf.com>, Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>,
Nate Watterson <nwatters@...eaurora.org>,
Prem Mallappa <prem.mallappa@...adcom.com>,
Dennis Chen <dennis.chen@....com>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 04/16] drivers: iommu: make of_iommu_set/get_ops() DT
agnostic
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 04:17:37PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> In the original of_iommu_configure design, the thought was that an ops
> structure could be IOMMU-instance-specific (hence the later-removed
> "priv" member), so I suppose right now it is mostly a hangover from
> that. However, it's also what we initialise a device's fwspec with, so
> becomes important again if we're ever going to get past the limitations
> of buses-which-are-not-actually-buses[1].
Yeah, I discussed this with a few others at LPC. My current idea is to
tell the iommu-core which hardware-iommus exist in the system and a
seperate iommu_ops ptr for each of them. Then every struct device can
link to the iommu-instance it is translated by.
We are not there yet, but this will give you the same per-device
iommu-ops as implemented here.
Joerg
Powered by blists - more mailing lists