>-----Original Message-----
>From: Nicolin Chen <nicol...@nvidia.com>
>Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 02/21] hw/pci: Introduce
>pci_device_get_viommu_cap()
>
>On Mon, Sep 01, 2025 at 02:35:29AM +0000, Duan, Zhenzhong wrote:
>> >> I just noticed this change will conflict with your suggestion of using
>> >HW_NESTED terminology.
>> >> Let me know if you agree with this change or not?
>> >
>> >It wouldn't necessarily conflict. VIOMMU_FLAG_WANT_NESTING_PARENT
>> >is a request, interchangeable with
>VIOMMU_FLAG_SUPPORT_HW_NESTED,
>> >i.e. a cap.
>> >
>> >At the end of the day, they are fundamentally the same thing that
>> >is to tell the core to allocate a nesting parent HWPT. The former
>> >one is just more straightforward, avoiding confusing terms such as
>> >"stage-1" and "nested".
>> >
>> >IMHO, you wouldn't even need the comments in the other thread, as
>> >the flag explains clearly what it wants and what the core is doing.
>> >
>> >Also, once you use the "want" one, the "HW_NESTED" terminology will
>> >not exist in the code.
>>
>> OK, will use the *_flags and _WANT_* style, do you have suggestions
>> for the name of vfio_device_viommu_get_nested() since "HW_NESTED"
>> terminology will not exist, what about
>vfio_device_get_viommu_flags_W_N_P()?
>
>I don't see it very necessary to have a specific API per flag. So,
>it could be just:
>
> uint64_t viommu_flags = vfio_device_get_viommu_flags(vbasedev);
>
> if (viommu_flags & VIOMMU_FLAG_WANT_NEST_PARENT) {
> flags |= IOMMU_HWPT_ALLOC_NEST_PARENT;
> }
>?
OK, make sense.
Thanks
Zhenzhong
