On 14/02/18 15:35, Robin Murphy wrote: > On 14/02/18 15:26, Alex Williamson wrote: >> On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:53:40 +0000 >> Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe.bruc...@arm.com> wrote: >> >>> When enabling both VFIO and VIRTIO_IOMMU modules, automatically select >>> VFIO_IOMMU_TYPE1 as well. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe.bruc...@arm.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/vfio/Kconfig | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/Kconfig b/drivers/vfio/Kconfig >>> index c84333eb5eb5..65a1e691110c 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/vfio/Kconfig >>> +++ b/drivers/vfio/Kconfig >>> @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ config VFIO_VIRQFD >>> menuconfig VFIO >>> tristate "VFIO Non-Privileged userspace driver framework" >>> depends on IOMMU_API >>> - select VFIO_IOMMU_TYPE1 if (X86 || S390 || ARM_SMMU || ARM_SMMU_V3) >>> + select VFIO_IOMMU_TYPE1 if (X86 || S390 || ARM_SMMU || ARM_SMMU_V3 || >>> VIRTIO_IOMMU) >>> select ANON_INODES >>> help >>> VFIO provides a framework for secure userspace device drivers. >> >> Why are we basing this on specific IOMMU drivers in the first place? >> Only ARM is doing that. Shouldn't IOMMU_API only be enabled for ARM >> targets that support it and therefore we can forget about the specific >> IOMMU drivers? Thanks, > > Makes sense - the majority of ARM systems (and mobile/embedded ARM64 > ones) making use of IOMMU_API won't actually support VFIO, but it can't > hurt to allow them to select the type 1 driver regardless. Especially as > multiplatform configs are liable to be pulling in the SMMU driver(s) anyway.
Cool, then I'll change that line to: + select VFIO_IOMMU_TYPE1 if (X86 || S390 || ARM || ARM64) Thanks, Jean --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
