On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 07:18:52AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2024 3:12 PM > > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 06:19:10AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > > > From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Sent: Friday, September 6, 2024 4:15 AM > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 02:43:26PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 10:37:45AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote: > > > > > > That being said, if we have a clear picture that in the long term > > > > > > we would extend it to hold more information, I think it could be > > > > > > a smart move. > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps virtual device can have its own "attach" to vIOMMU? Or > > > > > > would you still prefer attaching via proxy hwpt_nested? > > > > > > > > > > I was thinking just creating it against a vIOMMU is an effective > > > > > "attach" and the virtual device is permanently tied to the vIOMMU at > > > > > creation time. > > > > > > > > Ah, right! The create is per-viommu, so it's being attached. > > > > > > > > > > presumably we also need check compatibility between the idev > > > which the virtual device is created against and the stage-2 pgtable, > > > as a normal attach required? > > > > If that's required, it can be a part of "create virtual device", > > where idev and viommu (holding s2 hwpt) would be all available? > > > > yes Oh, I misread your question actually. I think it's about a matching validation between dev->iommu->iommu_dev and vIOMMU->iommu_dev. Thanks Nicolin
