On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 6:04 PM Rajat Jain <rajatja@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 2:14 AM Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
> To clarify, the attribute exposed by the firmware today is
> "ExternalFacingPort" and "external-facing" respectively:
>
> 617654aae50e ("PCI / ACPI: Identify untrusted PCI devices")
> 9cb30a71ac45d("PCI: OF: Support "external-facing" property")
>
> The kernel flag was named "untrusted" though, hence the assumption
> that "external=untrusted" is currently baked into the kernel today.
> IMHO, using "external" would fix that (The assumption can thus be
> contained in the IOMMU drivers) and at the same time allow more use of
> this attribute.
That discussion had been held, IIRC, during introduction of the
untrusted member in struct pci_dev...
> > > Trust is different, yes, don't get the two mixed up please. That should
> > > be a different sysfs attribute for obvious reasons.
> >
> > Yes, as a bottom line that's what I meant as well.
>
> So what is the consensus here? I don't have a strong opinion - but it
> seemed to me Greg is saying "external" and Andy is saying "untrusted"?
...and a conclusion has been made as you may see. So, I would highly
recommend to speak to the author(s) of the patch that introduced /
adopted 'untrusted' member.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
