From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@il.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] AMD IOMMU: Hanlde sibling device
	assignment correctly
Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 10:55:08 +0300
Message-ID: <20080512075508.GC25691@il.ibm.com>
References: <1210152421.2841.85.camel@gran.amd.com>
	<20080507095310.GH7002@il.ibm.com>
	<1210154691.2841.95.camel@gran.amd.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1210154691.2841.95.camel@gran.amd.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: Wei Wang2 <wei.wang2@amd.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 12:04:51PM +0200, Wei Wang2 wrote:

> I think both could be possible. If IOMMU is implemented per
> PCI-to-PCI-E bridge, then probably there will be a group of PCI
> device sharing a same PCI-E requester ID. The device table can only
> be indexed by either PCI-E requester ID or HT unit ID.

Good point. That should be a fairly rare case. It will also apply
equally well to VT-d, so this should probably be common functionality.

Cheers,
Muli