[PATCH v2 1/4] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add feature detection for HTTU

[Shameerali Kolothum Thodi]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg at nvidia.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2024 2:32 PM
> To: Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi at huawei.com>
> Cc: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts at arm.com>; iommu at lists.linux.dev; linux-arm-
> kernel at lists.infradead.org; joro at 8bytes.org; kevin.tian at intel.com;
> nicolinc at nvidia.com; mshavit at google.com; robin.murphy at arm.com;
> will at kernel.org; joao.m.martins at oracle.com; jiangkunkun
> <jiangkunkun at huawei.com>; zhukeqian <zhukeqian1 at huawei.com>; Linuxarm
> <linuxarm at huawei.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add feature detection for
> HTTU
> 
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 01:20:53PM +0000, Shameerali Kolothum Thodi wrote:
> 
> > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 11:04:43AM +0100, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> > > > On 23/04/2024 15:52, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 03:41:30PM +0100, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> > > > >> Hi,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I'm aiming to (slowly) get more involved with SMMU activities, although
> I'm
> > > sure
> > > > >> it will take a while to get up to speed and provide useful input. It was
> > > > >> suggested that this series would be a useful starting point to dip my toe
> in.
> > > > >> Please bear with me while I ask stupid questions...
> > > > >
> > > > > Nice!
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to see this merged as it was part of the original three
> > > > > implementations for iommufd dirty tracking. The other two have been
> > > > > merged for a long time now..
> > > >
> > > > My understanding is that this series should pretty much apply on top of
> > > > mainline, is that correct? (in practice there are some conflicts, but I think
> > > > they are trivial).
> > >
> > > It was originally based on my part 2, but I suspect it could apply
> > > easially on top of part 2a. I don't think it is worth rebasing to
> > > v6.9-rc since I expect Will to take 2a.
> >
> > But isn't arm_smmu_domain_alloc_user() gets introduced only in part 3
> > of the series?
> 
> Right. "easially" was perhaps a bit too strong. It would have to be
> rebased and pull back a little bit of the domain_alloc_user()
> implementation.
> 
> If it is good otherwise lets consider doing this. Maybe HTTU and part
> 2b can go together during the v6.11 cycle?

Sure. Let us target that.

Thanks,
Shameer