Hi Jean,
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 02:49:00PM +0100, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> I like this approach. When the device driver registers a fault handler,
> it also tells when it would like to be called (either in atomic context,
> blocking context, or both).
Is there a use-case for calling the same handler from both contexts?
> enum iommu_fault_status {
> IOMMU_FAULT_STATUS_NONE = 0,
> IOMMU_FAULT_STATUS_FAILURE,
> IOMMU_FAULT_STATUS_INVALID,
> IOMMU_FAULT_STATUS_HANDLED,
> IOMMU_FAULT_STATUS_IGNORE,
> };
This all certainly makes sense for the PRI/PASID case, but I don't think
that it makes sense yet to extend the existing report_iommu_fault()
interface to also handle PASID/PPR faults.
The later needs a lot more parameters to successfully handle a fault. In
the AMD driver these are all in 'struct fault', the relevant members
are:
u64 address;
u16 devid;
u16 pasid;
u16 tag;
u16 finish;
u16 flags;
And passing all this through the existing interface which also handles
non-pasid faults is cumbersome. So I'd like to keep the PASID/PPR
interface separate from the old one for now.
Regards,
Joerg
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
