RE: [RFC 01/13] iommu: Introduce bind_guest_stage API

[Tian, Kevin]

> From: Auger Eric
> Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 4:11 PM
> 
> Hi Kevin,
> On 09/04/2018 09:57 AM, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> >> From: Auger Eric
> >> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2018 9:52 PM
> >>
> >> Hi Jean-Philippe,
> >>
> >> On 08/31/2018 03:11 PM, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> >>> Hi Eric,
> >>>
> >>> On 23/08/18 16:25, Auger Eric wrote:
> >>>>> +int iommu_bind_guest_stage(struct iommu_domain *domain,
> struct
> >> device *dev,
> >>>>> +			   struct iommu_guest_stage_config *cfg)
> >>>
> >>> About the name change from iommu_bind_pasid_table: is the intent to
> >>> reuse this API for SMMUv2, which supports nested but not PASID?
> Seems
> >>> like a good idea but "iommu_bind_table" may be better since "stage" is
> >>> only used by Arm.
> >>
> >> At the moment I don't target SMUv2 but just SMMUv3. My focus was on
> >> nested stage enablement without enabling the multi-CD feature (PASID),
> >> whish is not supported by the QEMU vSMMUv3. Afterwards I realized
> that
> >> basically we are pointing to a CD or PASID table and that's about the
> >> same. I don't have a strong opinion on the name,
> iommu_bind_guest_table
> >> or iommu_bind_pasid_table would be fine with me. Indeed "stage" is
> ARM
> >> vocable (level for Intel?)
> >
> > Intel uses first level/second level.
> >
> > iommu_bind_table is a bit confusing. what should people take table as?
> > there is PASID table. there is also page table linked in each stage/level.
> and
> > maybe other tables in vendor-specific definition.
> >
> > to me iommu_bind_pasid_table is still clearer. anyway in other places
> > we've used pasid explicitly in vfio/iommu APIs, then it should be general
> > enough to represent various implementations.
> 
> Fine for me.
> 
> However I I would suggest to rename the original iommu_sva_invalidate
> into something that is SVA unrelated. iommu_tlb_invalidate is not OK as
> this API also is used to invalidate context caches - which are not
> iotlbs -. What about iommu_cache_invalidate?
> 
> At least we must clarify that this API can be used for something else
> than SVA enablement.
> 

Agree. using SVA is limiting.

I also agree that iommu_cache_invalidate is better, though I don't think
you want to pass guest context cache invalidation to host. that information
is fully under host control. :-)

Thanks
Kevin