Hi Halil, On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 11:26:36AM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote: > On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 13:12:20 +0100 > Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-phili...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > The VIRTIO_IOMMU_F_BYPASS feature is awkward to use and incomplete. > > Although it is implemented by QEMU, it is not supported by any driver as > > far as I know. Replace it with a new VIRTIO_IOMMU_F_BYPASS_CONFIG > > feature. > > Hi Jean-Philippe! > > Is somebody working on the implementation of this? I would like to be > Cc-ed with the implementation patches if possible.
Yes I posted the Linux support: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/20211013121052.518113-1-jean-phili...@linaro.org/ And QEMU, which depends on the Linux header: https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/20210930185050.262759-1-jean-phili...@linaro.org/ I plan to resend after the merge window and will Cc you. > The interaction of s390x and IOMMU is sometimes a little tricky. I would > like to make sure nothing breaks for us. :) Bypass should be constrained within the virtio-iommu device and driver, and so shouldn't break s390 as far as I know. I haven't thought much about supporting virtio-iommu for archs other than arm and x86 for the moment (in general it should be as simple as adding it to ACPI tables or DT). I believe power already has a PV IOMMU interface and doesn't need a dedicated vIOMMU device, but I'm not sure where s390 stands Thanks, Jean --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
