On 09/07/2024 12:15, Minwoo Im wrote:
> Caution: External email. Do not open attachments or click links, unless this
> email comes from a known sender and you know the content is safe.
>
>
> On 24-07-02 05:52:45, CLEMENT MATHIEU--DRIF wrote:
>> From: Clément Mathieu--Drif <clement.mathieu--d...@eviden.com>
>>
>> Devices implementing ATS can send translation requests using
>> pci_ats_request_translation_pasid.
>>
>> The invalidation events are sent back to the device using the iommu
>> notifier managed with pci_register_iommu_tlb_event_notifier and
>> pci_unregister_iommu_tlb_event_notifier
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Clément Mathieu--Drif <clement.mathieu--d...@eviden.com>
>> ---
>> hw/pci/pci.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> include/hw/pci/pci.h | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 96 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/pci/pci.c b/hw/pci/pci.c
>> index 7a483dd05d..93b816aff2 100644
>> --- a/hw/pci/pci.c
>> +++ b/hw/pci/pci.c
>> @@ -2833,6 +2833,50 @@ void pci_device_unset_iommu_device(PCIDevice *dev)
>> }
>> }
>>
>> +ssize_t pci_ats_request_translation_pasid(PCIDevice *dev, uint32_t pasid,
>> + bool priv_req, bool exec_req,
>> + hwaddr addr, size_t length,
>> + bool no_write, IOMMUTLBEntry
>> *result,
>> + size_t result_length,
>> + uint32_t *err_count)
>> +{
>> + assert(result_length);
>> + IOMMUMemoryRegion *iommu_mr = pci_device_iommu_memory_region_pasid(dev,
>> +
>> pasid);
>> + if (!iommu_mr || !pcie_ats_enabled(dev)) {
>> + return -EPERM;
>> + }
>> + return memory_region_iommu_ats_request_translation(iommu_mr, priv_req,
>> + exec_req, addr,
>> length,
>> + no_write, result,
>> + result_length,
>> + err_count);
>> +}
> Can we use this function not from the endpoint PCI device, but inside of the
> pci
> subsystem (hw/pci/pci.c) to make transparent abstraction for ATS request from
> PCI endpoint device POV? I guess it would be better to have PCI subsystem to
> issue ATS request if pcie_ats_enabled(dev) rather than calling from the
> endpoint
> side.
Hi,
This series aims to bring support for SVM (we are trying to integrate
the patches bit by bit).
From a spec point of view, I don't know if it would make sense to
implement the SVM logic at the PCI level
as it's supposed to be implemented by endpoint devices.
However, we could consider providing a reference/reusable/encapsulated
implementation of SVM with a simplified API
that would call the pci_* functions under the hood.
Do you have a specific use case in mind?
>cmd
>
