Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932413AbcDVPll (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Apr 2016 11:41:41 -0400 Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:54498 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932089AbcDVPlk (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Apr 2016 11:41:40 -0400 Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 17:39:53 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Eric Auger cc: Robin Murphy , eric.auger@st.com, alex.williamson@redhat.com, will.deacon@arm.com, joro@8bytes.org, jason@lakedaemon.net, marc.zyngier@arm.com, christoffer.dall@linaro.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, patches@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Bharat.Bhushan@freescale.com, pranav.sawargaonkar@gmail.com, p.fedin@samsung.com, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, Jean-Philippe.Brucker@arm.com, julien.grall@arm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/8] genirq/msi: Add a new MSI_FLAG_IRQ_REMAPPING flag In-Reply-To: <571A1855.5020008@linaro.org> Message-ID: References: <1461085990-2547-1-git-send-email-eric.auger@linaro.org> <1461085990-2547-2-git-send-email-eric.auger@linaro.org> <571A04A9.1010104@arm.com> <571A1855.5020008@linaro.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1370 Lines: 30 On Fri, 22 Apr 2016, Eric Auger wrote: > Robin, > On 04/22/2016 01:02 PM, Robin Murphy wrote: > > Hi Eric, > > > > On 19/04/16 18:13, Eric Auger wrote: > >> Let's introduce a new msi_domain_info flag value, MSI_FLAG_IRQ_REMAPPING > >> meant to tell the domain supports IRQ REMAPPING, also known as Interrupt > >> Translation Service. On Intel HW this IRQ remapping capability is > >> abstracted on IOMMU side while on ARM it is abstracted on MSI controller > >> side. This flag will be used to know whether the MSI passthrough is > >> safe. > > > > Perhaps a nitpick, but given the earlier confusion about what the IOMMU > > flag actually meant this prompts me to wonder if it's worth adjusting > > the general terminology before we propagate it further. What I think we > > actually care about is that one thing or the other "provides MSI > > isolation" rather than "supports MSI remapping", since the latter is all > > to easy to misinterpret the way we did in the SMMU drivers. > > The only concern I have is https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/4/18/283 attempts > to define a PCI bus flag dubbed PCI_BUS_FLAGS_MSI_REMAP combining the > iommu & msi layer info. In that sense x86 people may not be keen of > having different terminaologies. Anyway I will follow the consensus, if any. Yes, please keep that consistent. It makes 'grep' much more conveniant. Thanks, tglx