19.02.2021 01:07, Nicolin Chen пишет:
> Commit 25938c73cd79 ("iommu/tegra-smmu: Rework tegra_smmu_probe_device()")
> removed certain hack in the tegra_smmu_probe() by relying on IOMMU core to
> of_xlate SMMU's SID per device, so as to get rid of tegra_smmu_find() and
> tegra_smmu_configure() that
> From: Jacob Pan
> Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2021 1:09 AM
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 06:19:04 +, "Tian, Kevin"
> wrote:
>
> > > From: Jacob Pan
> > > Sent: Friday, February 19, 2021 5:31 AM
> > >
> > > Write protect bit, when set, inhibits supervisor writes to the
On 2/19/21 5:31 AM, Jacob Pan wrote:
Page requests are originated from the user page fault. Therefore, we
shall set FAULT_FLAG_USER.
FAULT_FLAG_REMOTE indicates that we are walking an mm which is not
guaranteed to be the same as the current->mm and should not be subject
to protection key
On 2/19/21 5:31 AM, Jacob Pan wrote:
When supervisor/privilige mode SVM is used, we bind init_mm.pgd with
a supervisor PASID. There should not be any page fault for init_mm.
Execution request with DMA read is also not supported.
This patch checks PRQ descriptor for both unsupported
Hi Jacob and Sanjay,
On 2/19/21 5:31 AM, Jacob Pan wrote:
Write protect bit, when set, inhibits supervisor writes to the read-only
pages. In supervisor shared virtual addressing (SVA), where page tables
are shared between CPU and DMA, IOMMU PASID entry WPE bit should match
CR0.WP bit in the
On 2/19/21 3:32 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 07, 2021 at 04:56:01PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 09:40:23AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> So one thing that has been on my mind for a while: I'd really like
>>> to kill the separate dma ops in
On Sun, Feb 07, 2021 at 05:09:29PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Use the existing variable that holds the physical address for
> xen_io_tlb_end to simplify xen_swiotlb_dma_supported a bit, and remove
> the otherwise unused xen_io_tlb_end variable and the xen_virt_to_bus
> helper.
>
On Sun, Feb 07, 2021 at 05:09:28PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Use the is_swiotlb_buffer to check if a physical address is
> a swiotlb buffer. This works because xen-swiotlb does use the
> same buffer as the main swiotlb code, and xen_io_tlb_{start,end}
> are just the addresses for it that
On Sun, Feb 07, 2021 at 04:56:01PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 09:40:23AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > So one thing that has been on my mind for a while: I'd really like
> > to kill the separate dma ops in Xen swiotlb. If we compare xen-swiotlb
> > to swiotlb
On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 11:49:40AM -0800, Jianxiong Gao wrote:
> > Sorry for being a little pushy, any chance we could get this reviewed
> > in time for the 5.12 merge window?
> >
> Tested and it looks good. Thanks for clearing it up!
Let me put it on my regression bucket as last time it was able
On 19 Feb 2021 12:24, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 04:39:43PM -0700, Al Stone wrote:
> > As of today, the proposal has been approved for inclusion in the next
> > release of the ACPI spec (whatever version gets released post the 6.4
> > version that just came out).
> >
>
Hi Kevin,
On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 06:19:04 +, "Tian, Kevin"
wrote:
> > From: Jacob Pan
> > Sent: Friday, February 19, 2021 5:31 AM
> >
> > Write protect bit, when set, inhibits supervisor writes to the read-only
> > pages. In guest supervisor shared virtual addressing (SVA),
> > write-protect
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 04:39:43PM -0700, Al Stone wrote:
> As of today, the proposal has been approved for inclusion in the next
> release of the ACPI spec (whatever version gets released post the 6.4
> version that just came out).
>
> Congratulations ?!? :)
>
> And thanks to all for their
13 matches
Mail list logo
