[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48576108-c261-1bb8-cea9-db3b6782f383@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 12:49:24 +0800
From: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc: baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
ashok.raj@...el.com, jacob.jun.pan@...el.com, kevin.tian@...el.com,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] PCI: Add "pci=iommu_passthrough=" parameter for
iommu passthrough
Hi Bjorn,
On 1/21/20 10:17 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> [+cc linux-pci, thread athttps://lore.kernel.org/r/20200101052648.14295-1-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com]
>
> On Wed, Jan 01, 2020 at 01:26:46PM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
>> The new parameter takes a list of devices separated by a semicolon.
>> Each device specified will have its iommu_passthrough bit in struct
>> device set. This is very similar to the existing 'disable_acs_redir'
>> parameter.
> Almost all of this patchset is in drivers/iommu. Should the parameter
> be "iommu ..." instead of "pci=iommu_passthrough=..."?
>
> There is already an "iommu.passthrough=" argument. Would this fit
> better there? Since the iommu_passthrough bit is generic, it seems
> like you anticipate similar situations for non-PCI devices.
>
Yes. Fair enough.
Best regards,
baolu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists