[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241017164805.GG3559746@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 13:48:05 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
Cc: kevin.tian@...el.com, will@...nel.org, joro@...tes.org,
suravee.suthikulpanit@....com, robin.murphy@....com,
dwmw2@...radead.org, baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, shuah@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, eric.auger@...hat.com,
jean-philippe@...aro.org, mdf@...nel.org, mshavit@...gle.com,
shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com, smostafa@...gle.com,
yi.l.liu@...el.com, aik@....com, patches@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 11/11] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add
IOMMU_VIOMMU_TYPE_ARM_SMMUV3 support
On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 09:43:22AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 01:41:23PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 09:28:16AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 09:38:11AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > > Add a new driver-type for ARM SMMUv3 to enum iommu_viommu_type. Implement
> > > > the viommu_alloc op with an arm_vsmmu_alloc function. As an initial step,
> > > > copy the VMID from s2_parent. A later cleanup series is required to move
> > > > the VMID allocation out of the stage-2 domain allocation routine to this.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h | 18 ++++++++++++++
> > > > include/uapi/linux/iommufd.h | 2 ++
> > > > .../arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > > drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c | 1 +
> > > > 4 files changed, 45 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > I squashed the following changes to this commit (will be in v4).
> > > It replaces nested_domain->s2_parent with nested_domain->vsmmu
> >
> > Err, do we want to make a viommu a hard requirement to use nesting? Is
> > that what is happening here?
>
> For SMMUv3 driver, we have to make it a hard requirement since the
> invalidation can be only done with a vIOMMU, right?
Oh, right yes, OK
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists