[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100802164234.GC6961@phenom.dumpdata.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 12:42:34 -0400
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
To: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>, hpa@...or.com
Cc: jeremy@...p.org, Ian.Campbell@...rix.com, albert_herranz@...oo.es,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] x86: Detect whether we should use Xen SWIOTLB.
On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 01:01:08AM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 08:47:53 -0700
> "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>
> > On 08/02/2010 08:43 AM, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > >
> > > That's the difficult part because IOMMUs are not
> > > interdependent. Hardware IOMMUs are related with swiotlb. GART and
> > > AMD-IOMMU are too.
> > >
> > > We could invent sorta IOMMU register interface and driver-ize IOMMUs
> > > but they can't be interdependent completely.
> >
> > Of course. However, we need there to be as much structure to it as
> > there can be.
>
> Ok, let's see if Konrad can invent something clean.
<chuckles> Thank you for your vote of confidence.
>
> But his attempt to create "swiotlb iommu function array" and "hardware
> iommu function array" looks like to makes the code more unreadable.
Let me go to my favorite coffee shop and think this one through.
Can I get concession for putting the original patch in (the simple, dumb one),
and then:
- start working on the IOMMU register interface without having to try
to get it done for 2.6.36, and
- do the driverization as a seperate cleanup.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists