> From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 3:54 PM
> @@ -222,6 +223,11 @@ struct iommu_iotlb_gather {
> /**
> * struct iommu_ops - iommu ops and capabilities
> * @capable: check capability
> + * @hw_info: IOMMU hardware information. The type of the returned data
> is
> + * defined in include/uapi/linux/iommufd.h. The data buffer is
"The type of the returned data is marked by @driver_type".
"defined in include/uapi/linux/iommufd.h" should belong to the comment
of @driver_type
> + * allocated in the IOMMU driver and the caller should free it
> + * after use. Return the data buffer if success, or ERR_PTR on
> + * failure.
> * @domain_alloc: allocate iommu domain
> * @probe_device: Add device to iommu driver handling
> * @release_device: Remove device from iommu driver handling
> @@ -246,11 +252,17 @@ struct iommu_iotlb_gather {
> * @remove_dev_pasid: Remove any translation configurations of a specific
> * pasid, so that any DMA transactions with this pasid
> * will be blocked by the hardware.
> + * @driver_type: One of enum iommu_hw_info_type. This is used in the
> hw_info
> + * reporting path. For the drivers that supports it, a unique
> + * type should be defined. For the driver that does not support
> + * it, this field is the IOMMU_HW_INFO_TYPE_DEFAULT that is 0.
> + * Hence, such drivers do not need to care this field.
The meaning of "driver_type" is much broader than reporting hw_info.
let's be accurate to call it as "hw_info_type". and while we have two
separate fields for one feature where is the check enforced on whether
both are provided?
Is it simpler to return the type directly in @hw_info?
btw IOMMU_HW_INFO_TYPE_DEFAULT also sounds misleading.
'default' implies hw_info still available but in a default format.
probably it's clearer to call it IOMMU_HW_INFO_TYPE_NONE.
