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

[Jim,Yan]

Hi,

> -----éäåä-----
> åää: Lu Baolu [mailto:baolu.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> åéæé: 2019å12æ25æ 10:38
> æää: Jim,Yan <jimyan@xxxxxxxxx>; Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@xxxxxxxxxx>
> æé: baolu.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; iommu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> äé: Re: çå: çå: çå: çå: çå: [PATCH] iommu/vt-d: Don't reject
> nvme host due to scope mismatch
> 
> 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

Yes. Of course. 

Best regards,
Jim