On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 10:49:56AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 02:30:56PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 04:51:39PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 08:24:05PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 01:10:49PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
@@ -946,4 +947,40 @@ struct iommu_viommu_unset_vdev_id { __aligned_u64 vdev_id; }; #define IOMMU_VIOMMU_UNSET_VDEV_ID _IO(IOMMUFD_TYPE, IOMMUFD_CMD_VIOMMU_UNSET_VDEV_ID)
+/**
- enum iommu_viommu_invalidate_data_type - VIOMMU Cache Invalidate Data Type
- @IOMMU_VIOMMU_INVALIDATE_DATA_ARM_SMMUV3: Invalidation data for ARM SMMUv3
- */
+enum iommu_viommu_invalidate_data_type {
- IOMMU_VIOMMU_INVALIDATE_DATA_ARM_SMMUV3,
+};
=1 here I think. Lets try to avoid 0 for the types..
And this shouldn't be in this patch
But also we can probably just use reuse enum iommu_hwpt_invalidate_data_type here?
Would that force IOMMU drivers to implement both hwpt and viommu invalidations? SMMUv3 driver would implement both anyway though..
I wouldn't say force, just that they have to use a consistent numbering if they do choose to do both.
But if we duplicate a driver type for two IOCTLs, that assumes our ABI supports both IOCTLs? No?
No, it is just a numbering system to label the struct layout.
Jason