On 14/02/18 15:26, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:53:40 +0000
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe.bruc...@arm.com> wrote:

When enabling both VFIO and VIRTIO_IOMMU modules, automatically select
VFIO_IOMMU_TYPE1 as well.

Signed-off-by: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe.bruc...@arm.com>
---
  drivers/vfio/Kconfig | 2 +-
  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/vfio/Kconfig b/drivers/vfio/Kconfig
index c84333eb5eb5..65a1e691110c 100644
--- a/drivers/vfio/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/vfio/Kconfig
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ config VFIO_VIRQFD
  menuconfig VFIO
        tristate "VFIO Non-Privileged userspace driver framework"
        depends on IOMMU_API
-       select VFIO_IOMMU_TYPE1 if (X86 || S390 || ARM_SMMU || ARM_SMMU_V3)
+       select VFIO_IOMMU_TYPE1 if (X86 || S390 || ARM_SMMU || ARM_SMMU_V3 || 
VIRTIO_IOMMU)
        select ANON_INODES
        help
          VFIO provides a framework for secure userspace device drivers.

Why are we basing this on specific IOMMU drivers in the first place?
Only ARM is doing that.  Shouldn't IOMMU_API only be enabled for ARM
targets that support it and therefore we can forget about the specific
IOMMU drivers?  Thanks,

Makes sense - the majority of ARM systems (and mobile/embedded ARM64 ones) making use of IOMMU_API won't actually support VFIO, but it can't hurt to allow them to select the type 1 driver regardless. Especially as multiplatform configs are liable to be pulling in the SMMU driver(s) anyway.

Robin.
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu

Reply via email to