Yi, On 10/29/2024 10:50 AM, Yi Liu wrote: > On 2024/10/23 19:10, Vasant Hegde wrote: >> Hi Yi, >> >> >> On 10/22/2024 6:21 PM, Yi Liu wrote: >>> On 2024/10/21 20:33, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >>>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 05:35:38PM +0800, Yi Liu wrote: >>>>> On 2024/10/18 22:39, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 10:58:22PM -0700, Yi Liu wrote: >>>>>>> The iommu drivers are on the way to drop the remove_dev_pasid op by >>>>>>> extending the blocked_domain to support PASID. However, this cannot be >>>>>>> done in one shot. So far, the Intel iommu and the ARM SMMUv3 driver have >>>>>>> supported it, while the AMD iommu driver has not yet. During this >>>>>>> transition, the IOMMU core needs to support both ways to destroy the >>>>>>> attachment of device/PASID and domain. >>>>>> >>>>>> Let's just fix AMD? >>>>> >>>>> cool. >>>> >>>> You could probably do better on this and fixup >>>> amd_iommu_remove_dev_pasid() to have the right signature directly, >>>> like the other drivers did >>> >>> It might make sense to move the amd_iommu_remove_dev_pasid() to the >>> drivers/iommu/amd/iommu.c and make it to be the blocked_domain_set_dev_pasid(). >> >> I wanted to keep all PASID code in pasid.c. I'd say for now lets keep it in >> pasid.c only. > > ok. If so, we may just let the blocked_domain_set_dev_pasid() call > amd_iommu_remove_dev_pasid(). Sure. Lets do that for now. -Vasant
