[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1a5a5fad-ed21-5c79-9a9e-ff21fadfb95f@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 18:09:48 +0100
From: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe.brucker@....com>
To: Auger Eric <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Cc: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Andriy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/16] iommu: Introduce cache_invalidate API
On 13/05/2019 17:50, Auger Eric wrote:
>> struct iommu_inv_pasid_info {
>> #define IOMMU_INV_PASID_FLAGS_PASID (1 << 0)
>> #define IOMMU_INV_PASID_FLAGS_ARCHID (1 << 1)
>> __u32 flags;
>> __u32 archid;
>> __u64 pasid;
>> };
> I agree it does the job now. However it looks a bit strange to do a
> PASID based invalidation in my case - SMMUv3 nested stage - where I
> don't have any PASID involved.
>
> Couldn't we call it context based invalidation then? A context can be
> tagged by a PASID or/and an ARCHID.
I think calling it "context" would be confusing as well (I shouldn't
have used it earlier), since VT-d uses that name for device table
entries (=STE on Arm SMMU). Maybe "addr_space"?
Thanks,
Jean
>
> Domain invalidation would invalidate all the contexts belonging to that
> domain.
>
> Thanks
>
> Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists