> From: Jean-Philippe Brucker [mailto:jean-philippe.bruc...@arm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 5:53 PM
>
> On 04/09/2018 09:41, Auger Eric wrote:
> > I think the confusion comes from the different terminology used in VTD
> > and ARM SMMU spec.
> >
> > Your PASID table ~ ARM SMMU Context
On 04/09/2018 09:41, Auger Eric wrote:
> I think the confusion comes from the different terminology used in VTD
> and ARM SMMU spec.
>
> Your PASID table ~ ARM SMMU Context Descriptor (CD) table
> Your Root Entry/Context Entry ~ ARM SMMU Stream Table Entry (STE)
In past discussions we used
> From: Auger Eric
> Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 4:11 PM
>
> Hi Kevin,
> On 09/04/2018 09:57 AM, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> >> From: Auger Eric
> >> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2018 9:52 PM
> >>
> >> Hi Jean-Philippe,
> >>
> >> On 08/31/2018 03:11 PM, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> >>> Hi Eric,
> >>>
> From: Auger Eric
> Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 4:41 PM
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
> On 09/04/2018 10:34 AM, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> >> From: Auger Eric
> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 4:11 PM
> >>
> >> Hi Kevin,
> >> On 09/04/2018 09:57 AM, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> From: Auger Eric
> Sent:
> From: Auger Eric
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2018 9:52 PM
>
> Hi Jean-Philippe,
>
> On 08/31/2018 03:11 PM, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> > Hi Eric,
> >
> > On 23/08/18 16:25, Auger Eric wrote:
> >>> +int iommu_bind_guest_stage(struct iommu_domain *domain, struct
> device *dev,
> >>> +
Hi Kevin,
On 09/04/2018 10:34 AM, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Auger Eric
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 4:11 PM
>>
>> Hi Kevin,
>> On 09/04/2018 09:57 AM, Tian, Kevin wrote:
From: Auger Eric
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2018 9:52 PM
Hi Jean-Philippe,
On 08/31/2018
Hi Kevin,
On 09/04/2018 09:57 AM, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Auger Eric
>> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2018 9:52 PM
>>
>> Hi Jean-Philippe,
>>
>> On 08/31/2018 03:11 PM, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
>>> Hi Eric,
>>>
>>> On 23/08/18 16:25, Auger Eric wrote:
> +int iommu_bind_guest_stage(struct
On 31/08/2018 14:52, Auger Eric wrote:
> Do we agree here we can get rid of the struct device * parameter?
That's fine by me, in my opinion the bind operation should only be on
the domain, like map/unmap. For the invalidation however, I think we
need to keep the device as an optional parameter,
Hi Jean-Philippe,
On 08/31/2018 03:11 PM, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On 23/08/18 16:25, Auger Eric wrote:
>>> +int iommu_bind_guest_stage(struct iommu_domain *domain, struct device *dev,
>>> + struct iommu_guest_stage_config *cfg)
>
> About the name change
Hi Eric,
On 23/08/18 16:25, Auger Eric wrote:
>> +int iommu_bind_guest_stage(struct iommu_domain *domain, struct device *dev,
>> + struct iommu_guest_stage_config *cfg)
About the name change from iommu_bind_pasid_table: is the intent to
reuse this API for SMMUv2, which
Hi Yi Liu,
On 08/24/2018 02:53 PM, Liu, Yi L wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
>> From: iommu-boun...@lists.linux-foundation.org [mailto:iommu-
>> boun...@lists.linux-foundation.org] On Behalf Of Eric Auger
>> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 8:17 PM
>> Subject: [RFC 01/13] iommu: Introduce bind_guest_stage
Hi,
On 08/23/2018 02:17 PM, Eric Auger wrote:
> From: Jacob Pan
>
> In virtualization use case, when a guest is assigned
> a PCI host device, protected by a virtual IOMMU on a guest,
> the physical IOMMU must be programmed to be consistent with
> the guest mappings. If the physical IOMMU
12 matches
Mail list logo
