On Mon, 13 May 2019 18:09:48 +0100
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe.bruc...@arm.com> wrote:
> On 13/05/2019 17:50, Auger Eric wrote:
> >> struct iommu_inv_pasid_info {
> >> #define IOMMU_INV_PASID_FLAGS_PASID (1 << 0)
> >> #define IOMMU_INV_PASID_FLAGS_ARCHID (1 << 1)
> >> __u32 flags;
> >> __u32 archid;
> >> __u64 pasid;
> >> };
> > I agree it does the job now. However it looks a bit strange to do a
> > PASID based invalidation in my case - SMMUv3 nested stage - where I
> > don't have any PASID involved.
> >
> > Couldn't we call it context based invalidation then? A context can
> > be tagged by a PASID or/and an ARCHID.
>
> I think calling it "context" would be confusing as well (I shouldn't
> have used it earlier), since VT-d uses that name for device table
> entries (=STE on Arm SMMU). Maybe "addr_space"?
>
I am still struggling to understand what ARCHID is after scanning
through SMMUv3.1 spec. It seems to be a constant for a given SMMU. Why
do you need to pass it down every time? Could you point to me the
document or explain a little more on ARCHID use cases.
We have three fileds called pasid under this struct
iommu_cache_invalidate_info{}
Gets confusing :)
> Thanks,
> Jean
>
> >
> > Domain invalidation would invalidate all the contexts belonging to
> > that domain.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Eric
[Jacob Pan]
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
