On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 at 21:53, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 12:25:03PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > smmu-v3 needs some more fixing to move that > > > > arm_smmu_master_enable_sva() logic into domain attachment. > > > > > > Will think about this, Thanks Jason > > > > Can you test it if a patch is made? > > Here it is: > > https://github.com/jgunthorpe/linux/commits/smmuv3_nesting/ > > fa1528253d2210 iommu: Remove IOMMU_DEV_FEAT_SVA > 5675560a272cf5 iommu/vt-d: Check if SVA is supported when attaching the SVA domain > 94bc2b9525b508 iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Put iopf enablement in the domain attach path > > Let me know.. With these patches, do we still need ops->user_pasid_table? if (fault->prm.flags & IOMMU_FAULT_PAGE_REQUEST_PASID_VALID) { attach_handle = iommu_attach_handle_get(dev->iommu_group, fault->prm.pasid, 0); // is attach_handle expected effect value here? if (IS_ERR(attach_handle)) { const struct iommu_ops *ops = dev_iommu_ops(dev); if (!ops->user_pasid_table) return NULL; /* * The iommu driver for this device supports user- * managed PASID table. Therefore page faults for * any PASID should go through the NESTING domain * attached to the device RID. */ attach_handle = iommu_attach_handle_get( dev->iommu_group, IOMMU_NO_PASID, IOMMU_DOMAIN_NESTED); Now I still need set ops->user_pasid_table, since attach_handle can not return from the first iommu_attach_handle_get with fault->prm.pasid = 1, but the second iommu_attach_handle_get with IOMMU_NO_PASID, suppose it is not expected? Thanks
