Hi Gustavo,
On 6/17/25 3:01 PM, Gustavo Romero wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> Thanks a lot for doing a first pass on this series!
>
> On 6/17/25 06:35, Eric Auger wrote:
>> Hi Gustavo,
>>
>> On 6/16/25 3:18 PM, Gustavo Romero wrote:
>>> Since v2:
>>> - Fixed no_tcg_its inverted logic (rth)
>>>
>>> Since v3:
>>> - Fixed remappings in the IORT table when ITS is no present
>>> - Rebased on master and resoled conflics, like no more "no_its"
>>> flag in VirtMachineClass
>>> - Dropped patch 1/9 because we actually want the instance flags,
>>> not only the class flags, and the instance flags are the ones
>>> to be used often when deciding about the presence/absence of a
>>> machine feature, instead of the negated class flags ("no_*")
>>> - Adapted the other patches that depended on 1/9
>>> - Dropped patch 4/9 in favor of using the instance flag for
>>> checking if ITS is on or off
>>> - Simplified VM options for the new "its=off" test
>>>
>>> v1: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2025-03/msg07080.html
>>> v2:
>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2025-04/msg00495.html
>>> (Patches 6/14 -> 14/14 in the series)
>>> v3: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2025-04/msg00567.html
>>>
>>> Fix ACPI tables for '-M its=off' CLI option and resolve the issue:
>>>
>>> https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/issues/2886
>>
>> One first comment is that this series will collide with Shameer's SMMU
>> multi instance series which has been lunder review for quite some time
>> (adding him in TO):
>>
>> I think it may be more future proof if you could rebase on it - I know
>> it is a pain ;-( -. Or if sbdy objects for Shameer's series please raise
>> your voice now.
>>
>> [PATCH v4 0/7] hw/arm/virt: Add support for user creatable SMMUv3
>> device
>> <https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250613144449.60156-1-shameerali.kolothum.th...@huawei.com/#r>
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250613144449.60156-1-shameerali.kolothum.th...@huawei.com/
>>
>
> ayayay, life is never that easy! :)
>
> Thanks for point that out. Sure, I can rebase it on Shameer's series,
> but also
> I'd like to have this ITS fix for 10.1, so I think it's a matter of
> understanding
> if Shameer's series will make the 10.1 release (thanks for asking the
> reviewers if they
> have any current objection so we have an idea if it's close to get
> accepted
> or not)?
Peter was the most annoyed by the usage of -device arm-smmuv3 option
line. We'd better ask him.
On my end I don't see how we can achieve this more elegantly.
>
> Meanwhile, I'm pretty keen on if I'm correctly generating the IORT
> table pruned from ITS
> (patch 7/8 in this series), like, are the remappings for the RC and
> SMMU nodes correct? That
> would make me more comfortable to start working on a rebase.
sure looking at it...
Eric
>
>
>> Also I understood Shameer intended to write some new bios-tables-test.
>
> I see.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Gustavo
>
