similar to: [virtio-dev] [RFC] virtio-iommu version 0.4

> From: Jean-Philippe Brucker [mailto:jean-philippe.brucker at arm.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 7:49 PM > > > > 2.6.8.2.1 > > Multiple overlapping RESV_MEM properties are merged together. Device > > requirement? if same types I assume? > > Combination rules apply to device and driver. When the driver puts > multiple endpoints in the same

This is the continuation of my proposal for virtio-iommu, the para- virtualized IOMMU. Here is a summary of the changes since last time [1]: * The virtio-iommu document now resembles an actual specification. It is split into a formal description of the virtio device, and implementation notes. Please find sources and binaries at [2]. * Added a probe request to describe to the guest different

This is the continuation of my proposal for virtio-iommu, the para- virtualized IOMMU. Here is a summary of the changes since last time [1]: * The virtio-iommu document now resembles an actual specification. It is split into a formal description of the virtio device, and implementation notes. Please find sources and binaries at [2]. * Added a probe request to describe to the guest different

Hi Jean, On 19/09/2017 12:47, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > Hi Eric, > > On 12/09/17 18:13, Auger Eric wrote: >> 2.6.7 >> - As I am currently integrating v0.4 in QEMU here are some other comments: >> At the moment struct virtio_iommu_req_probe flags is missing in your >> header. As such I understood the ACK protocol was not implemented by the >> driver in

Hi Jean, On 19/09/2017 12:47, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > Hi Eric, > > On 12/09/17 18:13, Auger Eric wrote: >> 2.6.7 >> - As I am currently integrating v0.4 in QEMU here are some other comments: >> At the moment struct virtio_iommu_req_probe flags is missing in your >> header. As such I understood the ACK protocol was not implemented by the >> driver in

Hi Kevin, On 28/08/17 08:39, Tian, Kevin wrote: > Here comes some comments: > > 1.1 Motivation > > You describe I/O page faults handling as future work. Seems you considered > only recoverable fault (since "aka. PCI PRI" being used). What about other > unrecoverable faults e.g. what to do if a virtual DMA request doesn't find > a valid mapping? Even when

Hi Kevin, On 28/08/17 08:39, Tian, Kevin wrote: > Here comes some comments: > > 1.1 Motivation > > You describe I/O page faults handling as future work. Seems you considered > only recoverable fault (since "aka. PCI PRI" being used). What about other > unrecoverable faults e.g. what to do if a virtual DMA request doesn't find > a valid mapping? Even when

Implement the virtio-iommu driver following version 0.5 of the specification [1]. Previous version of this code was sent back in April [2], implementing the first public RFC. Since then there has been lots of progress and discussion on the specification side, and I think the driver is in a good shape now. The reason patches 1-3 are only RFC is that I'm waiting on feedback from the Virtio TC

Implement the virtio-iommu driver following version 0.5 of the specification [1]. Previous version of this code was sent back in April [2], implementing the first public RFC. Since then there has been lots of progress and discussion on the specification side, and I think the driver is in a good shape now. The reason patches 1-3 are only RFC is that I'm waiting on feedback from the Virtio TC

Please find version 0.6 of the virtio-iommu specification at the following locations. Document: http://jpbrucker.net/virtio-iommu/spec/virtio-iommu.pdf http://jpbrucker.net/virtio-iommu/spec/virtio-iommu.html Sources: git://linux-arm.org/virtio-iommu.git viommu/v0.6 I didn't receive any comment for v0.5 [1], so this update is fairly light: * Changed range definition in map and

I'm seeking feedback on multi-platform support for virtio-iommu. At the moment only devicetree (DT) is supported and we don't have a pleasant solution for other platforms. Once we figure out the topology description, x86 support is trivial. Since the IOMMU manages memory accesses from other devices, the guest kernel needs to initialize the IOMMU before endpoints start issuing DMA.

I'm seeking feedback on multi-platform support for virtio-iommu. At the moment only devicetree (DT) is supported and we don't have a pleasant solution for other platforms. Once we figure out the topology description, x86 support is trivial. Since the IOMMU manages memory accesses from other devices, the guest kernel needs to initialize the IOMMU before endpoints start issuing DMA.

Hi jean, On 04/08/2017 20:19, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > This is the continuation of my proposal for virtio-iommu, the para- > virtualized IOMMU. Here is a summary of the changes since last time [1]: > > * The virtio-iommu document now resembles an actual specification. It is > split into a formal description of the virtio device, and implementation > notes. Please find

Hi Eric, On 12/09/17 18:13, Auger Eric wrote: > 2.6.7 > - As I am currently integrating v0.4 in QEMU here are some other comments: > At the moment struct virtio_iommu_req_probe flags is missing in your > header. As such I understood the ACK protocol was not implemented by the > driver in your branch. Uh indeed. And yet I could swear I've written that code... somewhere. I will

Hi Jean, On Tue Oct 24, 2017 at 10:28:59PM +0530, Linu Cherian wrote: > Hi Jean, > Thanks for your reply. > > On Tue Oct 24, 2017 at 09:37:12AM +0100, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > > Hi Linu, > > > > On 24/10/17 07:27, Linu Cherian wrote: > > > Hi Jean, > > > > > > On Mon Oct 23, 2017 at 10:32:41AM +0100, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:

Hi Jean, Thanks for your reply. On Tue Oct 24, 2017 at 09:37:12AM +0100, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > Hi Linu, > > On 24/10/17 07:27, Linu Cherian wrote: > > Hi Jean, > > > > On Mon Oct 23, 2017 at 10:32:41AM +0100, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > >> This is version 0.5 of the virtio-iommu specification, the paravirtualized > >> IOMMU. This version

Hi Jean, Thanks for your reply. On Tue Oct 24, 2017 at 09:37:12AM +0100, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > Hi Linu, > > On 24/10/17 07:27, Linu Cherian wrote: > > Hi Jean, > > > > On Mon Oct 23, 2017 at 10:32:41AM +0100, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > >> This is version 0.5 of the virtio-iommu specification, the paravirtualized > >> IOMMU. This version

> From: Jean-Philippe Brucker [mailto:jean-philippe.brucker at arm.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 2:41 AM > > On 18/04/17 10:51, Tian, Kevin wrote: > >> From: Jean-Philippe Brucker > >> Sent: Saturday, April 8, 2017 3:18 AM > >> > >> Unlike other virtio devices, the virtio-iommu doesn't work independently, > >> it is linked to

> From: Jean-Philippe Brucker [mailto:jean-philippe.brucker at arm.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 2:41 AM > > On 18/04/17 10:51, Tian, Kevin wrote: > >> From: Jean-Philippe Brucker > >> Sent: Saturday, April 8, 2017 3:18 AM > >> > >> Unlike other virtio devices, the virtio-iommu doesn't work independently, > >> it is linked to

Implement the virtio-iommu driver, following specification v0.8 [1]. Changes since v2 [2]: * Patches 2-4 allow virtio-iommu to use the PCI transport, since QEMU would like to phase out the MMIO transport. This produces a complex topology where the programming interface of the IOMMU could appear lower than the endpoints that it translates. It's not unheard of (e.g. AMD IOMMU), and the