Re: çå: çå: çå: çå: çå: [PATCH] iommu/vt-d: Don't reject nvme host due to scope mismatch

From: Lu Baolu
Date: Tue Dec 24 2019 - 21:38:49 EST


Hi,

On 12/25/19 10:05 AM, Jim,Yan wrote:
Hi,

-----éäåä-----
åää: Lu Baolu [mailto:baolu.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
åéæé: 2019å12æ25æ 10:01
æää: Jim,Yan <jimyan@xxxxxxxxx>; Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@xxxxxxxxxx>
æé: iommu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
äé: Re: çå: çå: çå: çå: [PATCH] iommu/vt-d: Don't reject nvme
host due to scope mismatch

Hi,

On 2019/12/25 9:52, Jim,Yan wrote:
Hi,

-----éäåä-----
åää: Lu Baolu [mailto:baolu.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
åéæé: 2019å12æ24æ 19:27
æää: Jim,Yan <jimyan@xxxxxxxxx>; Jerry Snitselaar
<jsnitsel@xxxxxxxxxx>
æé: iommu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
äé: Re: çå: çå: çå: [PATCH] iommu/vt-d: Don't reject nvme host
due to
scope mismatch

Hi,

On 2019/12/24 16:18, Jim,Yan wrote:
For both cases, a quirk flag seems to be more reasonable, so that
unrelated devices will not be impacted.

Best regards,
baolu
Hi Baolu,
Thanks for your advice. And I modify the patch as follow.
I just posted a patch for both NTG and NVME cases. Can you please
take a
look?
Does it work for you?

Best regards,
baolu

I have tested your patch. It does work for me. But I prefer my
second version,
it is more flexible, and may use for similar unknown devices.


I didn't get your point. Do you mind explaining why it's more flexible?

Best regards,
Baolu
For example, an unknown device has a normal PCI header and bridge scope
and a class of PCI_CLASS_BRIDGE_PCI.
These devices do have a class of PCI_BASE_CLASS_BRIDGE in common.

This is not a common case. It's only for devices on the marketing and hard for
the VT-d users to get it fixed in the OEM firmware.

Best regards,
Baolu

Got it. Then I am OK with this patch. I have tested it yesterday. It does work for me.
Thanks.

Can I add your Tested-by?

Best regards,
baolu