On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:54:27PM -0400, aafabbri wrote:
> On 8/23/11 4:04 AM, "Joerg Roedel" <joerg.roe...@amd.com> wrote:
> > That is makes uiommu basically the same as the meta-groups, right?
>
> Yes, functionality seems the same, thus my suggestion to keep uiommu
> explicit. Is there some need for group-groups besides defining sets of
> groups which share IOMMU resources?
>
> I do all this stuff (bringing up sets of devices which may share IOMMU
> domain) dynamically from C applications. I don't really want some static
> (boot-time or sysfs fiddling) supergroup config unless there is a good
> reason KVM/power needs it.
>
> As you say in your next email, doing it all from ioctls is very easy,
> programmatically.
I don't see a reason to make this meta-grouping static. It would harm
flexibility on x86. I think it makes things easier on power but there
are options on that platform to get the dynamic solution too.
Joerg
--
AMD Operating System Research Center
Advanced Micro Devices GmbH Einsteinring 24 85609 Dornach
General Managers: Alberto Bozzo, Andrew Bowd
Registration: Dornach, Landkr. Muenchen; Registerger. Muenchen, HRB Nr. 43632
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
