> From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2023 4:30 PM
>
> On 2023/3/16 16:16, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> >> + * 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?
>
> If I remember correctly, the vendor iommu type and hardware info are
> reported to user space separately.
>
there is only one IOMMU_DEVICE_GET_HW_INFO cmd. It's written as:
data = ops->hw_info(idev->dev, &data_len);
copy_to_user(u64_to_user_ptr(cmd->data_ptr), data, length);
cmd->out_data_type = ops->driver_type;
