On Wed, 15 May 2019 16:52:46 +0100
Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> On 14/05/2019 18:55, Jacob Pan wrote:
> > Yes, I agree to replace the standalone __64 pasid with this struct.
> > Looks more inline with address selective info., Just to double
> > confirm the new struct.
> >
> > Jean, will you
On 14/05/2019 18:55, Jacob Pan wrote:
> Yes, I agree to replace the standalone __64 pasid with this struct.
> Looks more inline with address selective info., Just to double confirm
> the new struct.
>
> Jean, will you put this in your sva/api repo?
Yes, I pushed it along with some documentation
On 15/05/2019 15:47, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Jean-Philippe Brucker
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 7:04 PM
>>
>> On 14/05/2019 18:44, Jacob Pan wrote:
>>> Hi Thank you both for the explanation.
>>>
>>> On Tue, 14 May 2019 11:41:24 +0100
>>> Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
>>>
On 14/05/2019
> From: Jean-Philippe Brucker
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 7:04 PM
>
> On 14/05/2019 18:44, Jacob Pan wrote:
> > Hi Thank you both for the explanation.
> >
> > On Tue, 14 May 2019 11:41:24 +0100
> > Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> >
> >> On 14/05/2019 08:36, Auger Eric wrote:
> >>> Hi Jacob,
>
On 14/05/2019 18:44, Jacob Pan wrote:
> Hi Thank you both for the explanation.
>
> On Tue, 14 May 2019 11:41:24 +0100
> Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
>
>> On 14/05/2019 08:36, Auger Eric wrote:
>>> Hi Jacob,
>>>
>>> On 5/14/19 12:16 AM, Jacob Pan wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2019 18:09:48 +0100
On Tue, 14 May 2019 10:44:01 -0700
Jacob Pan wrote:
> Hi Thank you both for the explanation.
>
> On Tue, 14 May 2019 11:41:24 +0100
> Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
>
> > On 14/05/2019 08:36, Auger Eric wrote:
> > > Hi Jacob,
> > >
> > > On 5/14/19 12:16 AM, Jacob Pan wrote:
> > >> On
On Tue, 14 May 2019 13:02:47 +0200
Auger Eric wrote:
> Hi Jean,
>
> On 5/14/19 12:42 PM, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> > On 14/05/2019 08:46, Auger Eric wrote:
> >> Hi Jean,
> >>
> >> On 5/13/19 7:09 PM, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> >>> On 13/05/2019 17:50, Auger Eric wrote:
> >
Hi Thank you both for the explanation.
On Tue, 14 May 2019 11:41:24 +0100
Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> On 14/05/2019 08:36, Auger Eric wrote:
> > Hi Jacob,
> >
> > On 5/14/19 12:16 AM, Jacob Pan wrote:
> >> On Mon, 13 May 2019 18:09:48 +0100
> >> Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> >>
> >>>
Hi Jean,
On 5/14/19 12:42 PM, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> On 14/05/2019 08:46, Auger Eric wrote:
>> Hi Jean,
>>
>> On 5/13/19 7:09 PM, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
>>> On 13/05/2019 17:50, Auger Eric wrote:
> struct iommu_inv_pasid_info {
> #define IOMMU_INV_PASID_FLAGS_PASID (1
On 14/05/2019 08:36, Auger Eric wrote:
> Hi Jacob,
>
> On 5/14/19 12:16 AM, Jacob Pan wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 May 2019 18:09:48 +0100
>> Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
>>
>>> On 13/05/2019 17:50, Auger Eric wrote:
> struct iommu_inv_pasid_info {
> #define IOMMU_INV_PASID_FLAGS_PASID (1
Hi Jean,
On 5/13/19 7:09 PM, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> On 13/05/2019 17:50, Auger Eric wrote:
>>> struct iommu_inv_pasid_info {
>>> #define IOMMU_INV_PASID_FLAGS_PASID (1 << 0)
>>> #define IOMMU_INV_PASID_FLAGS_ARCHID(1 << 1)
>>> __u32 flags;
>>> __u32 archid;
>>>
Hi Jacob,
On 5/14/19 12:16 AM, Jacob Pan wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2019 18:09:48 +0100
> Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
>
>> On 13/05/2019 17:50, Auger Eric wrote:
struct iommu_inv_pasid_info {
#define IOMMU_INV_PASID_FLAGS_PASID(1 << 0)
#define IOMMU_INV_PASID_FLAGS_ARCHID
On Mon, 13 May 2019 18:09:48 +0100
Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> On 13/05/2019 17:50, Auger Eric wrote:
> >> struct iommu_inv_pasid_info {
> >> #define IOMMU_INV_PASID_FLAGS_PASID(1 << 0)
> >> #define IOMMU_INV_PASID_FLAGS_ARCHID (1 << 1)
> >>__u32 flags;
> >>__u32
On 13/05/2019 17:50, Auger Eric wrote:
>> struct iommu_inv_pasid_info {
>> #define IOMMU_INV_PASID_FLAGS_PASID (1 << 0)
>> #define IOMMU_INV_PASID_FLAGS_ARCHID (1 << 1)
>> __u32 flags;
>> __u32 archid;
>> __u64 pasid;
>> };
> I agree it does the job now. However it looks a
Hi Jean-Philippe,
On 5/13/19 1:20 PM, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On 13/05/2019 10:14, Auger Eric wrote:
>> I noticed my qemu integration was currently incorrectly using PASID
>> invalidation for ASID based invalidation (SMMUV3 Stage1 CMD_TLBI_NH_ASID
>> invalidation command). So
Hi Eric,
On 13/05/2019 10:14, Auger Eric wrote:
> I noticed my qemu integration was currently incorrectly using PASID
> invalidation for ASID based invalidation (SMMUV3 Stage1 CMD_TLBI_NH_ASID
> invalidation command). So I think we also need ARCHID invalidation.
> Sorry for the late notice.
>>
Hi Jacob, Jean-Philippe,
On 5/4/19 12:32 AM, Jacob Pan wrote:
> From: "Liu, Yi L"
>
> In any virtualization use case, when the first translation stage
> is "owned" by the guest OS, the host IOMMU driver has no knowledge
> of caching structure updates unless the guest invalidation activities
>
17 matches
Mail list logo
