>>> On 02.05.18 at 09:47, <davidw...@zhaoxin.com> wrote:
> 发件人: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
> 发送时间: 2018年4月30日 22:15
>>>> On 25.04.18 at 11:51, <davidw...@zhaoxin.com> wrote:
>> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/iommu.h
>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/iommu.h
>> @@ -54,6 +54,7 @@ static inline const struct iommu_ops *iommu_get_ops(void)
>> switch ( boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor )
>> {
>> case X86_VENDOR_INTEL:
>> + case X86_VENDOR_SHANGHAI:
>> return &intel_iommu_ops;
>> case X86_VENDOR_AMD:
>> return &amd_iommu_ops;
>> @@ -69,6 +70,7 @@ static inline int iommu_hardware_setup(void)
>> switch ( boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor )
>> {
>> case X86_VENDOR_INTEL:
>> + case X86_VENDOR_SHANGHAI:
>> return intel_vtd_setup();
>> case X86_VENDOR_AMD:
>> return amd_iov_detect();
>
> There are numerous further occurrences of X86_VENDOR_INTEL throughout
> the code base - is it really the case that no single one of them needs
> similar
> amendment?
> [David]: Yes, there are numerous occurrences of X86_VENDOR_INTEL, such as
> supporting idle_nops in arch_init_ideal_nops() or vpmu in
> vpmu_arch_initialise(). Some of them perfect function, others improve
> performance. Can we perfect those by submitting separate patches? To
> support the iommu, we need to re-use intel_iommu_ops() and
> intel_vtd_setup().
Yes, and then even the IOMMU adjustment should be split to a separate patch,
I think.
Also please adjust your quoting style when replying to mails.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
