Hi Jean,
On 5/14/19 12:42 PM, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> 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
I meant Jacob here.
>> iommu_cache_invalidate_info's union. I understand the struct
>> iommu_inv_pasid_info now would replace it, correct?
Thank you for the confirmation.
Eric
>
> Yes
>
> Thanks,
> Jean
>
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
