[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH v2 3/8] x86/iommu: iommu_igfx, iommu_qinval and iommu_snoop are VT-d specific
On 1/12/23 13:49, Xenia Ragiadakou wrote: On 1/12/23 13:31, Jan Beulich wrote:On 04.01.2023 09:44, Xenia Ragiadakou wrote:--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/iommu.c +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/iommu.c@@ -82,11 +82,13 @@ static int __init cf_check parse_iommu_param(const char *s) else if ( ss == s + 23 && !strncmp(s, "quarantine=scratch-page", 23) )iommu_quarantine = IOMMU_quarantine_scratch_page; #endif -#ifdef CONFIG_X86 +#ifdef CONFIG_INTEL_IOMMU else if ( (val = parse_boolean("igfx", s, ss)) >= 0 ) iommu_igfx = val; else if ( (val = parse_boolean("qinval", s, ss)) >= 0 ) iommu_qinval = val; +#endifYou want to use no_config_param() here as well then.Yes. I will fix it.--- a/xen/include/xen/iommu.h +++ b/xen/include/xen/iommu.h @@ -74,9 +74,13 @@ extern enum __packed iommu_intremap { iommu_intremap_restricted, iommu_intremap_full, } iommu_intremap; -extern bool iommu_igfx, iommu_qinval, iommu_snoop; #else # define iommu_intremap false +#endif + +#ifdef CONFIG_INTEL_IOMMU +extern bool iommu_igfx, iommu_qinval, iommu_snoop; +#else # define iommu_snoop false #endifDo these declarations really need touching? In patch 2 you didn't move amd_iommu_perdev_intremap's either.Ok, I will revert this change (as I did in v2 of patch 2) since it is not needed. Actually, my patch was altering the current behavior by defining iommu_snoop as false when !INTEL_IOMMU. IIUC, there is no control over snoop behavior when using the AMD iommu. Hence, iommu_snoop should evaluate to true for AMD iommu. However, when using the INTEL iommu the user can disable it via the "iommu" param, right? If that's the case then iommu_snoop needs to be moved from vtd/iommu.c to x86/iommu.c and iommu_snoop assignment via iommu param needs to be guarded by CONFIG_INTEL_IOMMU. -- Xenia
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |