On 5 June 2018 at 08:39, Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 04:29:28PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: >> Hi; this is v2 of my iommu patchset, which does: >> * support IOMMUs that are aware of memory transaction attributes and >> may generate different translations for different attributes >> * support TCG execution out of memory which is behind an IOMMU >> * implement the Arm TrustZone Memory Protection Controller >> (which needs both the above features in the IOMMU core code) >> * use the MPC in the mps2-an505 board
> It seems that this series is still using the IOMMU index way. In case > I missed anything... Could you elaborate a bit on why this IOMMU index > solution is preferred comparing to the way to pass in MemTxAttrs? Or > was there any further discussion I missed on the topic? > > My last post to previous series is here: > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-05/msg05702.html > > In that, I was still confused on why we couldn't use the existing > MemTxAttrs directly instead of the new IOMMU index (and I explained on > why that was prefered at least to me). I didn't see replies > afterwards. Broadly speaking I didn't think I had any further better explanation than I'd already given in that thread, eg here: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-05/msg05250.html and here: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-05/msg05513.html If you want to make a specific (detailed) counterproposal of a different API, I'm happy to look at whether that works for the use cases I care about and whether it's a nicer way to do it. thanks -- PMM