Re: [PATCH 0/7] iommu cleanup and refactoring

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 02:48:02PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
 
> Agreed, certainly an IOMMU_DOMAIN_SVA type that can both encapsulate the mm
> and effectively replace iommu_sva seems like a logical and fairly small next
> step. We already have the paradigm of different domain types supporting
> different ops, so initially an SVA domain would simply allow bind/unbind
> rather than attach/detach/map/unmap.

I hope we can quickly get to a PASID enabled generic attach/detach
scheme - we really need this to do the uAPI part of this interface.

> they are fundamentally different things in their own right, and the ideal
> API should give us the orthogonality to also bind a device to an SVA domain
> without PASID (e.g. for KVM stage 2, or userspace assignment of simpler
> fault/stall-tolerant devices), or attach PASIDs to regular iommu_domains.

Yes, these are orthogonal things. A iommu driver that supports PASID
ideally should support PASID enabled attach/detatch for every
iommu_domain type it supports.

SVA should not be entangled with PASID beyond that SVA is often used
with PASID - a SVA iommu_domain should be fully usable with a RID too.

I'm hoping to see the core iommu code provide some simplified "SVA"
API that under the covers creates a SVA domain and then does a normal
PASID attach using the global PASID in the mm_struct - the
driver should not care what, or even if, PASID is used for a SVA
domain.

Jason