On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 10:59:58AM GMT, Tomasz Jeznach wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 8:15 AM Andrew Jones <ajones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Tomasz,
> >
> > I reviewed iommu-bits.h to the spec. Most naming matches exactly, which
> > is nice, but I've pointed out a few which don't.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > drew
> >
>
> Thanks for looking into this a bit boring file.
No problem. I also meant to point out that I checked all bits/offsets as
well. They all looked good to me.
...
> > > +enum riscv_iommu_fq_ttypes {
> > > + RISCV_IOMMU_FQ_TTYPE_NONE = 0,
> > > + RISCV_IOMMU_FQ_TTYPE_UADDR_INST_FETCH = 1,
> > > + RISCV_IOMMU_FQ_TTYPE_UADDR_RD = 2,
> > > + RISCV_IOMMU_FQ_TTYPE_UADDR_WR = 3,
> > > + RISCV_IOMMU_FQ_TTYPE_TADDR_INST_FETCH = 5,
> > > + RISCV_IOMMU_FQ_TTYPE_TADDR_RD = 6,
> > > + RISCV_IOMMU_FQ_TTYPE_TADDR_WR = 7,
> > > + RISCV_IOMMU_FQ_TTYPE_PCIE_ATS_REQ = 8,
> > > + RISCV_IOMMU_FW_TTYPE_PCIE_MSG_REQ = 9,
> > > +};
> >
> > RISCV_IOMMU_FW_TTYP_* for all above
> >
>
> I guess RISCV_IOMMU_FQ_TTYP_* to match _FQ_ acronym.
Oh yeah. I guess my eyes had glazed over at this point because I didn't
notice the 'FW' vs. 'FQ'. So, yeah, we want RISCV_IOMMU_FQ_TTYP_* for all
above, including RISCV_IOMMU_FQ_TTYP_PCIE_MSG_REQ.
Thanks,
drew
