[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250912183206.GH882933@ziepe.ca>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2025 15:32:06 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Nicolas Dufresne <nicolas.dufresne@...labora.com>
Cc: Jörg Rödel <joro@...tes.org>,
Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@...labora.com>,
robin.murphy@....com, robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org,
conor+dt@...nel.org, heiko@...ech.de, p.zabel@...gutronix.de,
mchehab@...nel.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, kernel@...labora.com,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 3/7] iommu: Add verisilicon IOMMU driver
On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 01:37:11PM -0400, Nicolas Dufresne wrote:
> To me this rejection isn't about Benjamin's driver, all iommu seems to look
> alike, so anyone else that would have sent new driver would have face the same
> issue.
Yes, many drivers looks approximately alike.. To the extent possible
we should be making more helpers and tools to lift common patterns out
of the drivers. I don't know how much of that applies to rockchip vs
verisilicon though. Obviously I'm tackling the page table stuff.
Much of the other common code is tracking attachments and invalidation
requirements. I'm hopeful the general method Nicolin is working on can
be lifted and shared. Certainly it is better than what is in any of
the three server focused drivers. But I don't know how much this
brings to these simpler drivers.
It seems strange to be talking about merging drivers that don't share
a common IP supplier or register programming model.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists