On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 07:18:52AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
From: Nicolin Chen nicolinc@nvidia.com Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2024 3:12 PM
On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 06:19:10AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
From: Nicolin Chen nicolinc@nvidia.com Sent: Friday, September 6, 2024 4:15 AM
On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 02:43:26PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 10:37:45AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
That being said, if we have a clear picture that in the long term we would extend it to hold more information, I think it could be a smart move.
Perhaps virtual device can have its own "attach" to vIOMMU? Or would you still prefer attaching via proxy hwpt_nested?
I was thinking just creating it against a vIOMMU is an effective "attach" and the virtual device is permanently tied to the vIOMMU at creation time.
Ah, right! The create is per-viommu, so it's being attached.
presumably we also need check compatibility between the idev which the virtual device is created against and the stage-2 pgtable, as a normal attach required?
If that's required, it can be a part of "create virtual device", where idev and viommu (holding s2 hwpt) would be all available?
yes
Oh, I misread your question actually. I think it's about a matching validation between dev->iommu->iommu_dev and vIOMMU->iommu_dev.
Thanks Nicolin