Hi Joerg, On 3/2/20 5:16 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote: > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 06:25:36PM +0100, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: >> This solution isn't elegant nor foolproof, but is the best we can do at >> the moment and works with existing virtio-iommu implementations. It also >> enables an IOMMU for lightweight hypervisors that do not rely on >> firmware methods for booting. > > I appreciate the enablement on x86, but putting the conmfiguration into > mmio-space isn't really something I want to see upstream. What is the > problem with defining an ACPI table instead? This would also make things > work on AARCH64 UEFI machines. Michael has pushed this solution (putting the "configuration in the PCI config space"), I think for those main reasons: - ACPI may not be supported on some archs/hyps - the virtio-iommu is a PCIe device so binding should not need ACPI description
Another issue with ACPI integration is we have different flavours of tables that exist: IORT, DMAR, IVRS x86 ACPI integration was suggested with IORT. But it seems ARM is reluctant to extend IORT to support para-virtualized IOMMU. So the VIOT was proposed as a different atternative in "[RFC 00/13] virtio-iommu on non-devicetree platforms" (https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/11257727/). Proposing a table that may be used by different vendors seems to be a challenging issue here. So even if the above solution does not look perfect, it looked a sensible compromise given the above arguments. Please could you explain what are the most compelling arguments against it? Thanks Eric > > Regards, > > Joerg > _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
