On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 10:43:34AM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 02:32:09PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 05:07:12AM -0800, Yi Liu wrote:
>
> > > @@ -465,6 +492,9 @@ struct iommu_domain_ops {
> > > size_t size);
> > > void (*iotlb_sync)(struct iommu_domain *domain,
> > > struct iommu_iotlb_gather *iotlb_gather);
> > > + int (*cache_invalidate_user)(struct iommu_domain *domain,
> > > + struct iommu_user_data_array *array,
> > > + u32 *error_code);
> >
> > Regarding the other conversation I worry a u32 error_code is too small.
> >
> > Unfortunately there is no obvious place to put something better so if
> > we reach it we will have to add more error_code space via normal
> > extension.
> >
> > Maybe expand this to u64? That is 64 bits of error register data and
> > the consumer index. It should do for SMMUv3 at least?
>
> I think Yi is moving the error_code to the entry data structure,
> where we can even define a list of error_codes as a driver data
> needs. So, I assume this u32 pointer would be gone too.
Oh, lets see that then..
Jason
