On 14/05/2019 08:46, Auger Eric wrote:
> Hi Jean,
>
> On 5/13/19 7:09 PM, Jean-Philippe Brucker 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"?
> yes you're right. Well we already pasid table table terminology so we
> can use it here as well - as long as we understand what purpose it
> serves ;-) - So OK for iommu_inv_pasid_info.
>
> I think Jean understood we would keep pasid standalone field in
> iommu_cache_invalidate_info's union. I understand the struct
> iommu_inv_pasid_info now would replace it, correct?
Yes
Thanks,
Jean
