Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 26 Jan 2022 09:41:13 +0000
From:   Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
Cc:     "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
        Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@redhat.com>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@intel.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
        "Pan, Jacob jun" <jacob.jun.pan@intel.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] iommu: Add iommu_domain::domain_ops
Message-ID: <YfEXOegPuG846NEb@myrica>
References: <20220124071103.2097118-1-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
 <20220124071103.2097118-8-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
 <BN9PR11MB5276BE30652988271878E78C8C5E9@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <Ye58Zxi+F9TQszgQ@myrica>
 <20220124163302.GC966497@nvidia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220124163302.GC966497@nvidia.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 12:33:02PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 10:16:07AM +0000, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 09:58:18AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > > > From: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
> > > > Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 3:11 PM
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * struct domain_ops - per-domain ops
> > > > + * @attach_dev: attach an iommu domain to a device
> > > > + * @detach_dev: detach an iommu domain from a device
> > > 
> > > What is the criteria about whether an op should be iommu_ops or domain_ops
> > > when it requires both domain and device pointers like above two (and future
> > > PASID-based attach)?
> > > 
> > > Other examples include:
> > > 	@apply_resv_region
> > > 	@is_attach_deferred
> > 
> > Could attach_dev() be an IOMMU op?  So a driver could set the domain ops
> > in attach_dev() rather than domain_alloc(). That would allow to install
> > map()/unmap() ops that are tailored for the device's IOMMU, which we don't
> > know at domain_alloc() time. 
> 
> I think we should be moving toward 'domain_alloc' returning the
> correct domain and the way the driver implements the domain shouldn't
> change after that.
> 
> > I'm thinking about a guest that has both physical and virtual
> > endpoints, which would ideally use different kinds of domain ops to
> > support both efficiently (caching mode vs page tables)
> 
> In this case shouldn't domain_alloc() reached from the struct device
> already do the correct thing?

Sure, if we can finalise the domains before attach that could also clean
up the drivers a bit.

Thanks,
Jean