On 14/02/18 15:26, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:53:40 +0000 Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe.bruc...@arm.com> wrote:When enabling both VFIO and VIRTIO_IOMMU modules, automatically select VFIO_IOMMU_TYPE1 as well. Signed-off-by: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe.bruc...@arm.com> --- drivers/vfio/Kconfig | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/vfio/Kconfig b/drivers/vfio/Kconfig index c84333eb5eb5..65a1e691110c 100644 --- a/drivers/vfio/Kconfig +++ b/drivers/vfio/Kconfig @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ config VFIO_VIRQFD menuconfig VFIO tristate "VFIO Non-Privileged userspace driver framework" depends on IOMMU_API - select VFIO_IOMMU_TYPE1 if (X86 || S390 || ARM_SMMU || ARM_SMMU_V3) + select VFIO_IOMMU_TYPE1 if (X86 || S390 || ARM_SMMU || ARM_SMMU_V3 || VIRTIO_IOMMU) select ANON_INODES help VFIO provides a framework for secure userspace device drivers.Why are we basing this on specific IOMMU drivers in the first place? Only ARM is doing that. Shouldn't IOMMU_API only be enabled for ARM targets that support it and therefore we can forget about the specific IOMMU drivers? Thanks,
Makes sense - the majority of ARM systems (and mobile/embedded ARM64 ones) making use of IOMMU_API won't actually support VFIO, but it can't hurt to allow them to select the type 1 driver regardless. Especially as multiplatform configs are liable to be pulling in the SMMU driver(s) anyway.
Robin. _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
