On 2023/12/28 15:11, Tian, Kevin wrote:
From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l....@intel.com> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2023 12:14 AM+static void nested_flush_pasid_iotlb(struct intel_iommu *iommu, + struct dmar_domain *domain, u64 addr, + unsigned long npages, bool ih) +{ + u16 did = domain_id_iommu(domain, iommu); + unsigned long flags; + + spin_lock_irqsave(&domain->lock, flags); + if (!list_empty(&domain->devices)) + qi_flush_piotlb(iommu, did, IOMMU_NO_PASID, addr, + npages, ih, NULL);Not sure the check of domain->devices makes sense here. The outer loop is xa_for_each(&domain->iommu_array, i, info) which, if found, then implies certain devices behind this iommu must be attached to this domain.
yes.
I wonder whether it's clearer to remove this function and just call qi_flush_piotlb() from intel_nested_flush_cache().
yeah, with above remark, it would be more clear to call qi_flush_piotlb() from intel_nested_flush_cache().
+ + /* + * Invalidation queue error (i.e. IQE) will not be reported to user + * as it's caused only by driver internal bug. + */here lack of: *error = 0;
yes.
+ if (fault & DMA_FSTS_ICE) + *error |= IOMMU_HWPT_INVALIDATE_VTD_S1_ICE; + if (fault & DMA_FSTS_ITE) + *error |= IOMMU_HWPT_INVALIDATE_VTD_S1_ITE; +} +
-- Regards, Yi Liu
