> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicolin Chen <[email protected]>
> Sent: 20 November 2025 21:35
> To: Shameer Kolothum <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; Jason Gunthorpe
> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Nathan
> Chen <[email protected]>; Matt Ochs <[email protected]>;
> [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> Krishnakant Jaju <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 27/33] hw/arm/smmuv3-accel: Add a property to
> specify RIL support
> 
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 01:22:07PM +0000, Shameer Kolothum wrote:
> > Currently QEMU SMMUv3 has RIL support by default. But if accelerated
> > mode is enabled, RIL has to be compatible with host SMMUv3 support.
> >
> > Add a property so that the user can specify this.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <[email protected]>
> > Tested-by: Zhangfei Gao <[email protected]>
> > Reviewed-by: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Shameer Kolothum <[email protected]>
> > ---
> >  hw/arm/smmuv3-accel.c   | 14 ++++++++++++--
> >  hw/arm/smmuv3-accel.h   |  4 ++++
> >  hw/arm/smmuv3.c         | 12 ++++++++++++
> >  include/hw/arm/smmuv3.h |  1 +
> >  4 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/hw/arm/smmuv3-accel.c b/hw/arm/smmuv3-accel.c index
> > aae7840c40..b6429c8b42 100644
> > --- a/hw/arm/smmuv3-accel.c
> > +++ b/hw/arm/smmuv3-accel.c
> > @@ -62,8 +62,8 @@ smmuv3_accel_check_hw_compatible(SMMUv3State
> *s,
> >          return false;
> >      }
> >
> > -    /* QEMU SMMUv3 supports Range Invalidation by default */
> > -    if (FIELD_EX32(info->idr[3], IDR3, RIL) !=
> > +    /* User can disable QEMU SMMUv3 Range Invalidation support */
> > +    if (FIELD_EX32(info->idr[3], IDR3, RIL) >
> >                  FIELD_EX32(s->idr[3], IDR3, RIL)) {
> 
> When (host) info->idr = 1 > (VM) s->idr = 0, it should work?

Yes, that was my intention.

> So, should it be "<" instead?

And got it wrong 😊. Will correct.

Thanks,
Shameer

Reply via email to