On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 06:40:08AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 11:43 +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > I don't think so. The concept of RMRR is just not defined well enough
> > (like the concept of unity mappings on the AMD side which is similar to
> > RMRR). The definition says, that any memory region must be mapped at
> > any time for the device. But that is not true (at least I have no
> > counter-example yet). The right definition would be, that the RMRR
> > regions are only necessary as long as the operating system does not
> > control the particular device. And assigning a device to a guest also
> > counts a 'taking control over the device'.
>
> I think HP folks would be very unhappy with that definition. As David
> indicates, that's how things like USB use RMRR, but the actual
> definition in the spec leaves much more room for abuse. Thanks,
To my experience, for a hardware designer, existing software overrides
any Spec because it is much worse to break existing software than it is
to break a Spec :) So, unless we break existing hardware/firmware, I
still suggest that we use the assumption that OS controlled devices do
not need RMRR/unity-mapped regions anymore.
Is HP doing anything in their firmware which would not work with that?
For the USB controlers, they only generate DMA to the RMRR/unity-mapped
region until the OS takes over control from the firmware. After
the USB driver is initialized the RMRR region should not be necessary
anymore.
Joerg
--
AMD Operating System Research Center
Advanced Micro Devices GmbH Einsteinring 24 85609 Dornach
General Managers: Alberto Bozzo
Registration: Dornach, Landkr. Muenchen; Registerger. Muenchen, HRB Nr. 43632
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
