On Wed, Jul 09, 2025 at 01:55:46PM -0400, Donald Dutile wrote:
> > > +enum {
> > > + VIOMMU_CAP_STAGE1 = BIT_ULL(0), /* stage1 page table supported */
> > > +};
> >
> > Thanks for this work. I am happy to see that we can share the
> > common code that allocates a NESTING_PARENT in the core using
> > this flag.
> >
> > Yet on ARM, a STAGE1 page table isn't always a nested S1, the
> > hardware accelerated one. More often, it can be just a regular
> > 1-stage translation table via emulated translation code and an
> > emulated iotlb.
> >
> Because the user-created smmuv3 started as 'accelerated smmuv3',
> and had been 'de-accelerated' to simply 'user created smmuv3',
> I'm looking for some clarification in the above statement/request.
>
> Is the above suppose to reflect that a nested IOMMU has some hw-acceleration
> in its Stage1 implementation?
> If so, then call it that: STAGE1_ACCEL.
> If it's suppose to represent that an IOMMU has nested/2-stage support,
> then the above is a valid cap; -but-, having a nested/2-stage support IOMMU
> doesn't necessarily mean its accelerated.
Well, there are an emulated "nested" mode and an hw-accelerated
"nested" mode in the smmuv3 code, so we had to choose something
like "accel" over "nested".
Here, on the other hand, I think the core using this CAP would
unlikely care about an emulated "nested" mode in the individual
vIOMMU..
So I suggested:
/* hardware-accelerated nested stage-1 page table support */
VIOMMU_CAP_NESTED_S1 = BIT_ULL(0),
which it should be clear IMHO.
If not, maybe go a bit further like "VIOMMU_CAP_HW_NESTED_S1"?
Thanks
Nicolin
