[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <01e5d0a9-715a-48d4-a2a4-2a0b5d99149b@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2025 13:48:03 +0800
From: Ethan Zhao <haifeng.zhao@...ux.intel.com>
To: Wei Wang <wei.w.wang@...el.com>, baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com,
kevin.tian@...el.com, yi.l.liu@...el.com, dwmw2@...radead.org,
jroedel@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] iommu/vt-d: Remove the redundant logic in
first_level_by_default()
在 2025/5/23 16:10, Wei Wang 写道:
> This original implementation included redundant logic to determine whether
> first-stage translation should be used by default. Simplify it and
> preserve the original behavior:
> - Returns false in legacy mode (no scalable mode support).
> - Defaults to first-level translation when both FLTS and SLTS are
> supported.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wei Wang <wei.w.wang@...el.com>
> ---
> drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c | 10 +---------
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c
> index cb0b993bebb4..228da47ab7cd 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c
> @@ -1366,15 +1366,7 @@ static void free_dmar_iommu(struct intel_iommu *iommu)
> */
> static bool first_level_by_default(struct intel_iommu *iommu)
> {
> - /* Only SL is available in legacy mode */
> - if (!sm_supported(iommu))
> - return false;
> -
> - /* Only level (either FL or SL) is available, just use it */
> - if (ecap_flts(iommu->ecap) ^ ecap_slts(iommu->ecap))
> - return ecap_flts(iommu->ecap);
> -
> - return true;
The function works like a digital circurt has 3 single bit inputs sm,
flts, slts and one bit output ret.
so the true value table of the orignal function looks like
sm flts slts ret
a 0 x x false
b 1 1 0 true
c 1 0 1 false
d 1 1 1 true
e 1 0 0 true
> + return sm_supported(iommu) && ecap_flts(iommu->ecap);
And the true value table of this new one looks like
sm flts slts ret
f 1 1 x true
g 1 0 x false
h 0 1 x false
i 0 0 x false
h, i covers a
g, doesn't cover e, c
f, covers b, d
So if we take them as two circurt blocks (chip), their functions aren't
equal to each other.
If we don't make any assumption, I wouldn't replace the old chip with
new one
But, maybe all the new chip and old one all works well under specific
context that I
didn't think deeper. :)
Thanks,
Ethan
> }
>
> int domain_attach_iommu(struct dmar_domain *domain, struct intel_iommu *iommu)
--
"firm, enduring, strong, and long-lived"
Powered by blists - more mailing lists