Re: [PATCH v1 08/16] iommufd/viommu: Add IOMMU_VIOMMU_INVALIDATE ioctl

[Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>]

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?

> +struct iommu_viommu_invalidate {
> +	__u32 size;
> +	__u32 viommu_id;
> +	__aligned_u64 data_uptr;
> +	__u32 data_type;
> +	__u32 entry_len;
> +	__u32 entry_num;
> +	__u32 __reserved;
> +};
> +#define IOMMU_VIOMMU_INVALIDATE _IO(IOMMUFD_TYPE, IOMMUFD_CMD_VIOMMU_INVALIDATE)

I wonder if we should use IOMMU_HWPT_INVALIDATE? the hwpt_id can tell
which mode it is in. The ioctl becomes badly named but these have
identical arguments.

Jason