On Tue, Sep 15, 2026 at 02:59:43PM +0200, Christian König wrote: > On 9/15/26 13:37, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 09:58:28AM +0200, Christian König wrote: > >> Hi Zhiping, > >> > >> sorry I'm completely underwater at the moment and don't have time to take > >> another look at the full set. > >> > >> But IIRC you already fixed my documentation requirements and skimming over > >> the patch once more I can't see anything wrong of hand. > >> > >> So feel free to add Acked-by: Christian König <[email protected]> > >> to patch "dma-buf: add optional get_pci_tph() callback" and push it > >> upstream through the VFIO channels. > > > > Christian, > > > > I'm slightly confused here. In the other thread, you expressed concerns > > about having PCI details common to every device in the P2P world in the > > dma-buf code, but here you seem fine with adding a niche P2P feature. > > That one is only using u16 and u8 types and has no dependency on the PCI > subsystem whatsoever. > > Giving those adjacent information sounds perfectly fine to me, we just can't > have any hard dependency on PCI subsystem types or functions. > > DMA-buf itself is massively used with vendor specific P2P interconnects, PCI > P2P is just a special case of that.
You are looking at it from the DRM perspective. Outside the DRM world, PCI is THE interconnect, everything else is a special case :). Thanks > > Regards, > Christian. > > > > > Thanks,
