Displaying 6 results from an estimated 6 matches for "implicit_iommu_for_dma_is_allowed".
2018 Aug 02
2
[RFC PATCH v1 0/6] Resolve unwanted DMA backing with IOMMU
...d because that will be a kinda
> software description (of a custom Linux driver model), while device-tree is
> supposed to describe HW.
>
> What about to grant IOMMU drivers with ability to decide whether the
> implicit backing for a device is appropriate? Like this:
>
> bool implicit_iommu_for_dma_is_allowed(struct device *dev)
> {
> const struct iommu_ops *ops = dev->bus->iommu_ops;
> struct iommu_group *group;
>
> group = iommu_group_get(dev);
> if (!group)
> return NULL;
>
> iommu_group_put(group);
>
> if (!ops->implicit_iommu_for_dma_is_allowed)...
2018 Jul 27
3
[RFC PATCH v1 0/6] Resolve unwanted DMA backing with IOMMU
...ree property sounds a bit awkward because that will be a kinda
software description (of a custom Linux driver model), while device-tree is
supposed to describe HW.
What about to grant IOMMU drivers with ability to decide whether the implicit
backing for a device is appropriate? Like this:
bool implicit_iommu_for_dma_is_allowed(struct device *dev)
{
const struct iommu_ops *ops = dev->bus->iommu_ops;
struct iommu_group *group;
group = iommu_group_get(dev);
if (!group)
return NULL;
iommu_group_put(group);
if (!ops->implicit_iommu_for_dma_is_allowed)
return true;
return ops->implicit_iommu_for_dma_...
2018 Aug 15
2
[RFC PATCH v1 0/6] Resolve unwanted DMA backing with IOMMU
...m Linux driver model), while device-tree
> >> is
> >> supposed to describe HW.
> >>
> >> What about to grant IOMMU drivers with ability to decide whether the
> >> implicit backing for a device is appropriate? Like this:
> >>
> >> bool implicit_iommu_for_dma_is_allowed(struct device *dev)
> >> {
> >>
> >> const struct iommu_ops *ops = dev->bus->iommu_ops;
> >> struct iommu_group *group;
> >>
> >> group = iommu_group_get(dev);
> >> if (!group)
> >>
> >> return NULL;
&...
2018 Aug 03
0
[RFC PATCH v1 0/6] Resolve unwanted DMA backing with IOMMU
...inda
>> software description (of a custom Linux driver model), while device-tree is
>> supposed to describe HW.
>>
>> What about to grant IOMMU drivers with ability to decide whether the
>> implicit backing for a device is appropriate? Like this:
>>
>> bool implicit_iommu_for_dma_is_allowed(struct device *dev)
>> {
>> const struct iommu_ops *ops = dev->bus->iommu_ops;
>> struct iommu_group *group;
>>
>> group = iommu_group_get(dev);
>> if (!group)
>> return NULL;
>>
>> iommu_group_put(group);
>>
>> if (!op...
2018 Aug 16
0
[RFC PATCH v1 0/6] Resolve unwanted DMA backing with IOMMU
...l), while device-tree
>>>> is
>>>> supposed to describe HW.
>>>>
>>>> What about to grant IOMMU drivers with ability to decide whether the
>>>> implicit backing for a device is appropriate? Like this:
>>>>
>>>> bool implicit_iommu_for_dma_is_allowed(struct device *dev)
>>>> {
>>>>
>>>> const struct iommu_ops *ops = dev->bus->iommu_ops;
>>>> struct iommu_group *group;
>>>>
>>>> group = iommu_group_get(dev);
>>>> if (!group)
>>>>
>>...
2018 Jul 27
2
[RFC PATCH v1 0/6] Resolve unwanted DMA backing with IOMMU
On 27/07/18 15:10, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> On Friday, 27 July 2018 12:03:28 MSK Will Deacon wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 10:25:13AM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 02:16:18AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>> The proposed solution adds a new option to the base device driver
>>>> structure that allows device drivers to