> -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> > Sent: 24 September 2019 10:10 > To: Paul Durrant <paul.durr...@citrix.com>; xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org > Cc: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpa...@amd.com>; Andrew Cooper > <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v6 7/8] AMD/IOMMU: allocate one device table > per PCI segment > > On 23.09.2019 18:30, Paul Durrant wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Xen-devel <xen-devel-boun...@lists.xenproject.org> On Behalf Of Jan > >> Beulich > >> Sent: 19 September 2019 14:25 > >> To: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org > >> Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>; Suravee Suthikulpanit > <suravee.suthikulpa...@amd.com> > >> Subject: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v6 7/8] AMD/IOMMU: allocate one device table > >> per PCI segment > >> > >> Having a single device table for all segments can't possibly be right. > > > > The copy of the spec. I have says (on page 253: Fixed-Length IVHD > > Blocks) that IVHD entries must have a segment group of 0, so can't > > the code just require iommu->seg == 0? > > The wording in my version is "At this time, only PCI Segment Group 0 is > supported." This suggests to me that it is not a good idea to have logic > baked in that depends on this remaining true. I realize though that there > are more places than just this one where we (have to) assume segment 0 > (all in iommu_acpi.c, and all marked with an XXX comment). >
Ok. Fair enough. I just wasn't sure it was worth doing this change at the moment; but it doesn't hurt, so you can add my R-b. Paul > Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
