[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161110161619.GK2078@8bytes.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 17:16:19 +0100
From: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
Cc: Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>, eric.auger.pro@...il.com,
christoffer.dall@...aro.org, marc.zyngier@....com,
alex.williamson@...hat.com, will.deacon@....com,
tglx@...utronix.de, jason@...edaemon.net,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
drjones@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
pranav.sawargaonkar@...il.com, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
punit.agrawal@....com, diana.craciun@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 8/8] iommu/arm-smmu: implement add_reserved_regions
callback
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 04:07:08PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 10/11/16 15:46, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 11:24:06AM +0000, Eric Auger wrote:
> >> + resource_list_for_each_entry(window, &bridge->windows) {
> >> + if (resource_type(window->res) != IORESOURCE_MEM &&
> >> + resource_type(window->res) != IORESOURCE_IO)
> >> + continue;
> >
> > Why do you care about IO resources?
>
> [since this is essentially code I wrote]
>
> Because they occupy some area of the PCI address space, therefore I
> assumed that, like memory windows, they would be treated as P2P. Is that
> not the case?
No, not at all. The IO-space is completly seperate from the MEM-space.
They are two different address-spaces, addressing different things. And
the IO-space is also not translated by any IOMMU I am aware of.
Joerg
Powered by blists - more mailing lists