> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
> Sent: 12 February 2026 14:57
> To: Shameer Kolothum Thodi <[email protected]>; Nicolin Chen
> <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Nathan Chen
> <[email protected]>; Matt Ochs <[email protected]>; Jiandi An
> <[email protected]>; Jason Gunthorpe <[email protected]>;
> [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; Krishnakant Jaju <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/24] hw/arm/smmuv3-accel: Introduce CMDQV ops
> interface
> >> I had
> >> the impression you reverted to a fallback impl. If there is
> >> specialization, I still think ops are relevant. Eric
> > There is no fallback implementation. So just to confirm, you are suggesting
> > to remove the ops completely or just keep the ops for reset/init only?
>
> Depends on the code to come next. If your reset and init really differs
> between normal accel SMMU and vcmdq enhanced accel SMMU, to me it is
> still relevant to have separate implementations in different callbacks.
It is not an either/or case.
The vCMDQ path does not replace the normal accelerated SMMU init/reset.
Instead, it requires additional init/reset steps on top of the regular accel
flow.
if (accel)
accel_init();
if (accel && cmdqv)
cmdqv_init();
So the vCMDQ logic is an extension of the accelerated mode, not a fallback
or alternative implementation.
I think the later patches in the series make this clearer.
Please let me know if you still feel the ops necessary.
Thanks,
Shameer
