lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] iommu: arm-smmu: stall support
Hi Jean,

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 02:49:00PM +0100, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> I like this approach. When the device driver registers a fault handler,
> it also tells when it would like to be called (either in atomic context,
> blocking context, or both).

Is there a use-case for calling the same handler from both contexts?

> enum iommu_fault_status {
> IOMMU_FAULT_STATUS_NONE = 0,
> IOMMU_FAULT_STATUS_FAILURE,
> IOMMU_FAULT_STATUS_INVALID,
> IOMMU_FAULT_STATUS_HANDLED,
> IOMMU_FAULT_STATUS_IGNORE,
> };


This all certainly makes sense for the PRI/PASID case, but I don't think
that it makes sense yet to extend the existing report_iommu_fault()
interface to also handle PASID/PPR faults.

The later needs a lot more parameters to successfully handle a fault. In
the AMD driver these are all in 'struct fault', the relevant members
are:

u64 address;
u16 devid;
u16 pasid;
u16 tag;
u16 finish;
u16 flags;

And passing all this through the existing interface which also handles
non-pasid faults is cumbersome. So I'd like to keep the PASID/PPR
interface separate from the old one for now.

Regards,

Joerg

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-27 16:36    [W:1.528 / U:0.312 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site