[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZxFchFtb8ilUf9Vz@Asurada-Nvidia>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 11:50:44 -0700
From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...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 02/16] iommufd/viommu: Add a default_viommu_ops for
IOMMU_VIOMMU_TYPE_DEFAULT
On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 03:47:29PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 09:38:14AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > An IOMMU_VIOMMU_TYPE_DEFAULT doesn't need a free() op since the core can
> > free everything in the destroy(). Now with the new vDEVICE structure, it
> > might want to allocate its own vDEVICEs.
> >
> > Add a default_viommu_ops for driver to hook ops for default vIOMMUs.
>
> Why? arm_smmu is now creating its own viommu object, so who will use
> this?
>
> Do we have any use for the default mode? It is already a bit
> confusing, can we just drop it?
Hmm, that would make the default model completely useless..
Should we unsupport a default viommu allocation?
Nicolin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists