[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250828125149.GD7333@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2025 09:51:49 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
Cc: Ethan Zhao <etzhao1900@...il.com>, robin.murphy@....com,
joro@...tes.org, bhelgaas@...gle.com, will@...nel.org,
robin.clark@....qualcomm.com, yong.wu@...iatek.com,
matthias.bgg@...il.com, angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com,
thierry.reding@...il.com, vdumpa@...dia.com, jonathanh@...dia.com,
rafael@...nel.org, lenb@...nel.org, kevin.tian@...el.com,
yi.l.liu@...el.com, baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
patches@...ts.linux.dev, pjaroszynski@...dia.com, vsethi@...dia.com,
helgaas@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] pci: Suspend iommu function prior to resetting a
device
On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 11:50:58AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> It feels like we need a no-fail re-attach operation, or at least an
> unlikely-to-fail one. I recall years ago we tried a can_attach op
> to test the compatibility but it didn't get merged. Maybe we'd need
> it so that a concurrent attach can test compatibility, allowing the
> re-attach in iommu_dev_reset_done() to more likely succeed.
This is probably the cleanest option to split these things
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists