[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YNwXxAEIRz5t631E@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 08:05:40 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
"Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@...dia.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>
Subject: Re: [RFC] /dev/ioasid uAPI proposal
On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 08:58:05AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 09:11:03AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > nor do any virtio drivers implement the required platform specific
> > > cache flushing to make no-snoop TLPs work.
> >
> > I don't get why virtio drivers needs to do that. I think DMA API should hide
> > those arch/platform specific stuffs from us.
>
> It is not arch/platform stuff. If the device uses no-snoop then a
> very platform specific recovery is required in the device driver.
Well, the proper way to support NO_SNOOP DMA would be to force the
DMA API into supporting the device as if the platform was not DMA
coherent, probably on a per-call basis. It is just that no one bothered
to actually do the work an people just kept piling hacks over hacks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists