Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/16] iommu: Introduce cache_invalidate API
To:     Auger Eric <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>,
        "iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
Cc:     "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
        Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
        Andriy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
References: <1556922737-76313-1-git-send-email-jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>
 <1556922737-76313-3-git-send-email-jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>
 <d32d3d19-11c9-4af9-880b-bb8ebefd4f7f@redhat.com>
 <44d5ba37-a9e9-cc7a-2a3a-d32b840afa29@arm.com>
 <7807afe9-efab-9f48-4ca0-2332a7a54950@redhat.com>
 <1a5a5fad-ed21-5c79-9a9e-ff21fadfb95f@arm.com>
 <1edd45e6-4da3-e393-36b2-9e63cd5f7607@redhat.com>
From:   Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe.brucker@arm.com>
Message-ID: <4094baf1-6cf5-a33b-4717-08ced0673c50@arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 May 2019 11:42:46 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1edd45e6-4da3-e393-36b2-9e63cd5f7607@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 14/05/2019 08:46, Auger Eric wrote:
> Hi Jean,
> 
> On 5/13/19 7:09 PM, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
>> On 13/05/2019 17:50, Auger Eric wrote:
>>>> struct iommu_inv_pasid_info {
>>>> #define IOMMU_INV_PASID_FLAGS_PASID	(1 << 0)
>>>> #define IOMMU_INV_PASID_FLAGS_ARCHID	(1 << 1)
>>>> 	__u32	flags;
>>>> 	__u32	archid;
>>>> 	__u64	pasid;
>>>> };
>>> I agree it does the job now. However it looks a bit strange to do a
>>> PASID based invalidation in my case - SMMUv3 nested stage - where I
>>> don't have any PASID involved.
>>>
>>> Couldn't we call it context based invalidation then? A context can be
>>> tagged by a PASID or/and an ARCHID.
>>
>> I think calling it "context" would be confusing as well (I shouldn't
>> have used it earlier), since VT-d uses that name for device table
>> entries (=STE on Arm SMMU). Maybe "addr_space"?
> yes you're right. Well we already pasid table table terminology so we
> can use it here as well - as long as we understand what purpose it
> serves ;-) - So OK for iommu_inv_pasid_info.
> 
> I think Jean understood we would keep pasid standalone field in
> iommu_cache_invalidate_info's union. I understand the struct
> iommu_inv_pasid_info now would replace it, correct?

Yes

Thanks,
Jean