[GIT PULL] IOMMU updates for v4.15

2017-11-13 Thread Alex Williamson
Hi Linus, As Joerg mentioned[1], he's out on paternity leave through the end of the year and I'm filling in for him in the interim. Thanks, Alex [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/10/22/72 The following changes since commit ce76353f169a6471542d999baf3d29b121dce9c0: iommu/amd: Finish TLB flush

Re: [PATCH v2 08/16] iommu: introduce device fault data

2017-11-13 Thread Jean-Philippe Brucker
On 13/11/17 16:57, Jacob Pan wrote: > On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 13:06:24 + > Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > >> On 10/11/17 22:18, Jacob Pan wrote: >>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:54:59 + >>> Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: >>> On

Re: [PATCH v2 08/16] iommu: introduce device fault data

2017-11-13 Thread Jacob Pan
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 13:06:24 + Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > On 10/11/17 22:18, Jacob Pan wrote: > > On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:54:59 + > > Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > > > >> On 09/11/17 19:36, Jacob Pan wrote: > >>> On

Re: [PATCH v2 08/16] iommu: introduce device fault data

2017-11-13 Thread Jacob Pan
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 13:19:50 + Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > On 11/11/17 00:00, Jacob Pan wrote: > > On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:54:59 + > > Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > > > >> /* > >> * Note: I tried to synthesize what I

Re: [PATCH v2 08/16] iommu: introduce device fault data

2017-11-13 Thread Jean-Philippe Brucker
On 11/11/17 00:00, Jacob Pan wrote: > On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:54:59 + > Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > >> /* >> * Note: I tried to synthesize what I believe would be useful to >> device >> * drivers and guests, with regards to the kind of faults that the ARM

Re: [PATCH v2 08/16] iommu: introduce device fault data

2017-11-13 Thread Jean-Philippe Brucker
On 10/11/17 22:18, Jacob Pan wrote: > On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:54:59 + > Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > >> On 09/11/17 19:36, Jacob Pan wrote: >>> On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 11:38:50 + >>> Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: >>> I

RE: [RFCv2 PATCH 01/36] iommu: Keep track of processes and PASIDs

2017-11-13 Thread Bharat Kumar Gogada
> > In this case even though hardware supports PASID, BIND flow fails. It should fail, since we're reserving PASID 0 for non-PASID transactions with S1DSS=0b10. In addition, the SMMUv3 specification does not allow using PASID with a single entry. See the description of S1CDMax in 5.2