On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:51:55AM -0700, Jacob Pan wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 15:40:41 +0200
> Joerg Roedel <[email protected]> wrote:
> > enum pasid_table_model {
> > PASID_TABLE_INTEL,
> > PASID_TABLE_ARM,
> > PASID_TABLE_AMD,
> > /* ... */
> > };
> >
> I guess one vendor could have multiple pasid table format. so perhaps
> the name could reflect the format as well?
Yes, that makes sense.
> > struct pasid_table_config {
> > __u64 base_ptr;
> > __u8 pasid_bits;
> > union {
> > struct {
> > /* Intel specific fields */
> > } intel;
> >
> > struct {
> > /* ARM specific fields */
> > } arm;
> >
> >
> > struct {
> > /* AMD specific fields */
> > } amd;
> >
> > /* ... */
> > };
> > };
> >
> > How does that look?
> >
> It should work for us for now but I am not sure how stable the vendor
> specific fields will be, this is UAPI. BTW, do you also intend to
> include the pasid_table_model # in pasid_table_config?
If its going to be UAPI then we probably also need a version and a
length/size field. But since individual formats do not change, their
sub-struct should be stable.
Regards,
Joerg
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
