From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: by 2002:a17:505:8ed0:b0:1be9:327d:8ee3 with SMTP id kh16csp144092njc; Thu, 19 Jun 2025 02:38:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=2; AJvYcCXXC8TO2n6PqQJpjp2AGy2Yn5x3POm6F8l9ObX3P1/ynyhyGY1ZOzxXgZuUT+KAUqNpH8hYjWQGoaxc0w==@linaro.org X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHvfLm2+XOEOK3muOlDYoD5JEMKa9/ygGeJ2iXgiytNi7n2FsLt4jixHSjC9h/6DZq54sK8 X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1a27:b0:7d0:a0e5:87cd with SMTP id af79cd13be357-7d3c6c0c7fcmr3394138585a.4.1750325930285; Thu, 19 Jun 2025 02:38:50 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1750325930; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; b=kPRXMCp8/2zvZoTe27ucTBSQsL83XX09X0b40q/K0xI2VB2YRWdf5FMdUAhPnwXZrW 0YQoRHX3Ih+pOGBc5dhb4CpsLy+4KyhmgceDQqSr+ZtI5H5M6hkXJaDcfMei7qbtYyg9 GU0JEA38KRSqmTq31GN042STc9nv3BHx8uD6Xz7bJMyf681xCJqv9yMSiF8M9FRD+9+A stqmb374ecu9FytxeT2x9V/7rSO/1N4Q7S0+lQtvGRyJfr9mHYtDN778IVdEv4yJWRgC sdHcURFPGWXWbXLhHec03YQRTxBoYftsQ6yoWJ6KCkMuzKrkTrDRU2H4m4pJOIrfkMnv fMFg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; h=sender:errors-to:from:reply-to:list-subscribe:list-help:list-post :list-archive:list-unsubscribe:list-id:precedence :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:date; bh=gLOCfxGPrs7QNBUGFWoEpjObZTEQlERkAKU08WmLxSI=; fh=GE2Qfcnmb+jiMDIBn/MB0bQnTdZ0RBdqza4se49ifp8=; b=OGhqllTbFQCV6M73yQmI/nhYKhIM6HJa+x1mg4iqUNEXWHYBlQ+5WyjZx6FPPDKMQS dtjs023XBpoL+dQ3EpAdt44CyW8t4m42APl2HINRNo7nNJcTutrC8v1Cwc/rIy7Dk0BX 4ALYHvRaJti/uPbATXEFx1WwCiKdi00D7yjrMVnJ/6wYbDx48b5a/9mQGYKqY3fhiKj+ 4C6F3OoNq/uuExSszlZ3ba4uk+paEChbpEWsMrokhhPQRi61360Imn/jzGDGMkWSZHoS 0VdJme9XQ57bRcSNgsbrxzEOc/6PiMM3DBxkMxWoi330DtIIEuaD1ERvkgjSOAQf4LFN 3JzQ==; dara=google.com ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of qemu-arm-bounces+alex.bennee=linaro.org@nongnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="qemu-arm-bounces+alex.bennee=linaro.org@nongnu.org"; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=nongnu.org Return-Path: Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org. [209.51.188.17]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id af79cd13be357-7d3b8dffb94si1618083185a.161.2025.06.19.02.38.50 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Thu, 19 Jun 2025 02:38:50 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of qemu-arm-bounces+alex.bennee=linaro.org@nongnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.51.188.17; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of qemu-arm-bounces+alex.bennee=linaro.org@nongnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="qemu-arm-bounces+alex.bennee=linaro.org@nongnu.org"; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uSBit-0004H9-7g; Thu, 19 Jun 2025 05:38:19 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uSBir-0004Fr-8P; Thu, 19 Jun 2025 05:38:17 -0400 Received: from [185.176.79.56] (helo=frasgout.his.huawei.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uSBio-0003uN-Mr; Thu, 19 Jun 2025 05:38:16 -0400 Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.231]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4bNFrV1P58z6M5dH; Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:37:30 +0800 (CST) Received: from frapeml500008.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.182.85.71]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DA511404C6; Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:38:06 +0800 (CST) Received: from localhost (10.203.177.66) by frapeml500008.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.71) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.39; Thu, 19 Jun 2025 11:38:03 +0200 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 10:38:02 +0100 To: Shameerali Kolothum Thodi CC: "eric.auger@redhat.com" , Linuxarm , "qemu-arm@nongnu.org" , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" , "peter.maydell@linaro.org" , "jgg@nvidia.com" , "nicolinc@nvidia.com" , "ddutile@redhat.com" , "berrange@redhat.com" , "imammedo@redhat.com" , "nathanc@nvidia.com" , "mochs@nvidia.com" , "smostafa@google.com" , "Wangzhou (B)" , jiangkunkun , "zhangfei.gao@linaro.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/7] hw/arm/smmu-common: Check SMMU has PCIe Root Complex association Message-ID: <20250619103802.00000dfa@huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <20250619103028.00000277@huawei.com> References: <20250613144449.60156-1-shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com> <20250613144449.60156-2-shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com> <20250616112019.00003bce@huawei.com> <20250617175247.00007d43@huawei.com> <49d4c4b73e9a44a783332ddfe9a2fbdf@huawei.com> <327b5515-467c-4666-86d6-fb2a99925a8c@redhat.com> <6e180d39-b1eb-4935-98b0-3ac73766e8aa@redhat.com> <5fd7717fcd7e45d9aaff3e293cf63683@huawei.com> <20250619103028.00000277@huawei.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.3.0 (GTK 3.24.42; x86_64-w64-mingw32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Originating-IP: [10.203.177.66] X-ClientProxiedBy: lhrpeml100006.china.huawei.com (7.191.160.224) To frapeml500008.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.71) X-Host-Lookup-Failed: Reverse DNS lookup failed for 185.176.79.56 (deferred) Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.176.79.56; envelope-from=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com; helo=frasgout.his.huawei.com X-Spam_score_int: -33 X-Spam_score: -3.4 X-Spam_bar: --- X-Spam_report: (-3.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-arm@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-to: Jonathan Cameron From: Jonathan Cameron via Errors-To: qemu-arm-bounces+alex.bennee=linaro.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-arm-bounces+alex.bennee=linaro.org@nongnu.org X-TUID: +elk0/zabuSg On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 10:30:28 +0100 Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 09:05:07 +0100 > Shameerali Kolothum Thodi wrote: >=20 > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Eric Auger > > > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2025 8:41 AM > > > To: Shameerali Kolothum Thodi > > > ; Jonathan Cameron > > > > > > Cc: Linuxarm ; qemu-arm@nongnu.org; qemu- > > > devel@nongnu.org; peter.maydell@linaro.org; jgg@nvidia.com; > > > nicolinc@nvidia.com; ddutile@redhat.com; berrange@redhat.com; > > > imammedo@redhat.com; nathanc@nvidia.com; mochs@nvidia.com; > > > smostafa@google.com; Wangzhou (B) ; > > > jiangkunkun ; zhangfei.gao@linaro.org > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/7] hw/arm/smmu-common: Check SMMU has PCIe > > > Root Complex association > > >=20 > > > Hi Shameer, > > >=20 > > > On 6/19/25 9:24 AM, Shameerali Kolothum Thodi wrote: =20 > > > > Hi Eric, > > > > =20 > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: Eric Auger > > > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2025 6:00 PM > > > >> To: Shameerali Kolothum Thodi > > > >> ; Jonathan Cameron > > > >> > > > >> Cc: Linuxarm ; qemu-arm@nongnu.org; qemu- > > > >> devel@nongnu.org; peter.maydell@linaro.org; jgg@nvidia.com; > > > >> nicolinc@nvidia.com; ddutile@redhat.com; berrange@redhat.com; > > > >> imammedo@redhat.com; nathanc@nvidia.com; mochs@nvidia.com; > > > >> smostafa@google.com; Wangzhou (B) ; > > > >> jiangkunkun ; zhangfei.gao@linaro.org > > > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/7] hw/arm/smmu-common: Check SMMU has = =20 > > > PCIe =20 > > > >> Root Complex association > > > >> > > > >> Hi Shameer, Jonathan, > > > >> > > > >> On 6/18/25 10:35 AM, Shameerali Kolothum Thodi wrote: =20 > > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > > >>>> From: Jonathan Cameron > > > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 5:53 PM > > > >>>> To: Eric Auger > > > >>>> Cc: Shameerali Kolothum Thodi > > > >>>> ; Linuxarm > > > >>>> ; qemu-arm@nongnu.org; qemu- > > > >>>> devel@nongnu.org; peter.maydell@linaro.org; jgg@nvidia.com; > > > >>>> nicolinc@nvidia.com; ddutile@redhat.com; berrange@redhat.com; > > > >>>> imammedo@redhat.com; nathanc@nvidia.com; mochs@nvidia.com; > > > >>>> smostafa@google.com; Wangzhou (B) ; > > > >>>> jiangkunkun ; zhangfei.gao@linaro.org > > > >>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/7] hw/arm/smmu-common: Check SMMU has = =20 > > > >> PCIe =20 > > > >>>> Root Complex association > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 09:49:54 +0200 > > > >>>> Eric Auger wrote: > > > >>>> =20 > > > >>>>> On 6/16/25 12:20 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote: =20 > > > >>>>>> On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 15:44:43 +0100 > > > >>>>>> Shameer Kolothum =20 > > > wrote: =20 > > > >>>>>> =20 > > > >>>>>>> Although this change does not affect functionality at present= , it is =20 > > > >>>>>> Patch title says PCIe. This check is vs PCI host bridge. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> No idea which one you wanted, but if it is PCIe needs to be > > > >>>>>> TYPC_PCIE_HOST_BRIDGE from pcie_host.h not the pci_host.h one > > > >>>>>> I think. =20 > > > >>>>> I think we need TYPE_PCI_HOST_BRIDGE as we want to check agains= t =20 > > > >> pxb =20 > > > >>>>> pci-bridge/pci_expander_bridge.c:=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 .parent=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =3D =20 > > > >>>> TYPE_PCI_HOST_BRIDGE, =20 > > > >> sorry but I still fail to understand why we can't just check again= st > > > >> > > > >> TYPE_PCI_HOST_BRIDGE for making sure the SMMU is attached to PXB or > > > >> GPEX. What does it fail to check? Why shall we care about PCI vs P= CIe? =20 > > > > I think the concern is getting any other TYPE_PCI_HOST_BRIDGE type= s =20 > > > attached =20 > > > > to SMMUv3 other than pxb-pcie or GPEX. For example you could do, > > > > > > > > -device pxb-cxl,bus_nr=3D12,bus=3Dpcie.0,id=3Dcxl.1 \ > > > > -device arm-smmuv3,primary-bus=3Dcxl.1,id=3Dsmmuv3.1 \ > > > > > > > > as pxb-cxl is of type TYPE_PCI_HOST_BRIDGE. I don't know if there a= re any =20 > > > other =20 > > > > ones similar to this out there. > > > > > > > > So the aim is to make the checking more specific to PXB. =20 > > >=20 > > > thank you for the clarification. Is it invalid to have the SMMU > > > protecting RIDs comming from the pxb-cxl hierarchy? =20 > >=20 > > That=E2=80=99s a good question. I don't know that for sure. =20 >=20 > It should be fine to support CXL for this but we can work that out later. >=20 > For now limited use cases as there is no CXL VFIO support and the only th= ing > emulated devices do that the SMMU might influence is MSIX. >=20 > The one that concerned me is pxb-pci if we only care about pcie. > I'm not sure if we need to make that distinction or not. =20 >=20 Hmm. Shameer pointed out I hallucinated the existence of a PCI only expande= r bridge. So ignore that. > Jonathan >=20 > > Anyway currently the full support for CXL on virt is in progress here, > > https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/20250612134338.1871023-1-Jonathan.Ca= meron@huawei.com/ > >=20 > > Jonathan? > >=20 > > Thanks, > > Shameer > > =20 > > > =20 > > =20 >=20 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07B34C7115B for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2025 09:39:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uSBit-0004Hb-Hm; Thu, 19 Jun 2025 05:38:19 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uSBir-0004Fr-8P; Thu, 19 Jun 2025 05:38:17 -0400 Received: from [185.176.79.56] (helo=frasgout.his.huawei.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uSBio-0003uN-Mr; Thu, 19 Jun 2025 05:38:16 -0400 Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.231]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4bNFrV1P58z6M5dH; Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:37:30 +0800 (CST) Received: from frapeml500008.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.182.85.71]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DA511404C6; Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:38:06 +0800 (CST) Received: from localhost (10.203.177.66) by frapeml500008.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.71) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.39; Thu, 19 Jun 2025 11:38:03 +0200 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 10:38:02 +0100 To: Shameerali Kolothum Thodi CC: "eric.auger@redhat.com" , Linuxarm , "qemu-arm@nongnu.org" , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" , "peter.maydell@linaro.org" , "jgg@nvidia.com" , "nicolinc@nvidia.com" , "ddutile@redhat.com" , "berrange@redhat.com" , "imammedo@redhat.com" , "nathanc@nvidia.com" , "mochs@nvidia.com" , "smostafa@google.com" , "Wangzhou (B)" , jiangkunkun , "zhangfei.gao@linaro.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/7] hw/arm/smmu-common: Check SMMU has PCIe Root Complex association Message-ID: <20250619103802.00000dfa@huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <20250619103028.00000277@huawei.com> References: <20250613144449.60156-1-shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com> <20250613144449.60156-2-shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com> <20250616112019.00003bce@huawei.com> <20250617175247.00007d43@huawei.com> <49d4c4b73e9a44a783332ddfe9a2fbdf@huawei.com> <327b5515-467c-4666-86d6-fb2a99925a8c@redhat.com> <6e180d39-b1eb-4935-98b0-3ac73766e8aa@redhat.com> <5fd7717fcd7e45d9aaff3e293cf63683@huawei.com> <20250619103028.00000277@huawei.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.3.0 (GTK 3.24.42; x86_64-w64-mingw32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Originating-IP: [10.203.177.66] X-ClientProxiedBy: lhrpeml100006.china.huawei.com (7.191.160.224) To frapeml500008.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.71) X-Host-Lookup-Failed: Reverse DNS lookup failed for 185.176.79.56 (deferred) Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.176.79.56; envelope-from=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com; helo=frasgout.his.huawei.com X-Spam_score_int: -33 X-Spam_score: -3.4 X-Spam_bar: --- X-Spam_report: (-3.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-to: Jonathan Cameron From: Jonathan Cameron via Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 10:30:28 +0100 Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 09:05:07 +0100 > Shameerali Kolothum Thodi wrote: >=20 > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Eric Auger > > > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2025 8:41 AM > > > To: Shameerali Kolothum Thodi > > > ; Jonathan Cameron > > > > > > Cc: Linuxarm ; qemu-arm@nongnu.org; qemu- > > > devel@nongnu.org; peter.maydell@linaro.org; jgg@nvidia.com; > > > nicolinc@nvidia.com; ddutile@redhat.com; berrange@redhat.com; > > > imammedo@redhat.com; nathanc@nvidia.com; mochs@nvidia.com; > > > smostafa@google.com; Wangzhou (B) ; > > > jiangkunkun ; zhangfei.gao@linaro.org > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/7] hw/arm/smmu-common: Check SMMU has PCIe > > > Root Complex association > > >=20 > > > Hi Shameer, > > >=20 > > > On 6/19/25 9:24 AM, Shameerali Kolothum Thodi wrote: =20 > > > > Hi Eric, > > > > =20 > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: Eric Auger > > > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2025 6:00 PM > > > >> To: Shameerali Kolothum Thodi > > > >> ; Jonathan Cameron > > > >> > > > >> Cc: Linuxarm ; qemu-arm@nongnu.org; qemu- > > > >> devel@nongnu.org; peter.maydell@linaro.org; jgg@nvidia.com; > > > >> nicolinc@nvidia.com; ddutile@redhat.com; berrange@redhat.com; > > > >> imammedo@redhat.com; nathanc@nvidia.com; mochs@nvidia.com; > > > >> smostafa@google.com; Wangzhou (B) ; > > > >> jiangkunkun ; zhangfei.gao@linaro.org > > > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/7] hw/arm/smmu-common: Check SMMU has = =20 > > > PCIe =20 > > > >> Root Complex association > > > >> > > > >> Hi Shameer, Jonathan, > > > >> > > > >> On 6/18/25 10:35 AM, Shameerali Kolothum Thodi wrote: =20 > > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > > >>>> From: Jonathan Cameron > > > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 5:53 PM > > > >>>> To: Eric Auger > > > >>>> Cc: Shameerali Kolothum Thodi > > > >>>> ; Linuxarm > > > >>>> ; qemu-arm@nongnu.org; qemu- > > > >>>> devel@nongnu.org; peter.maydell@linaro.org; jgg@nvidia.com; > > > >>>> nicolinc@nvidia.com; ddutile@redhat.com; berrange@redhat.com; > > > >>>> imammedo@redhat.com; nathanc@nvidia.com; mochs@nvidia.com; > > > >>>> smostafa@google.com; Wangzhou (B) ; > > > >>>> jiangkunkun ; zhangfei.gao@linaro.org > > > >>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/7] hw/arm/smmu-common: Check SMMU has = =20 > > > >> PCIe =20 > > > >>>> Root Complex association > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 09:49:54 +0200 > > > >>>> Eric Auger wrote: > > > >>>> =20 > > > >>>>> On 6/16/25 12:20 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote: =20 > > > >>>>>> On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 15:44:43 +0100 > > > >>>>>> Shameer Kolothum =20 > > > wrote: =20 > > > >>>>>> =20 > > > >>>>>>> Although this change does not affect functionality at present= , it is =20 > > > >>>>>> Patch title says PCIe. This check is vs PCI host bridge. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> No idea which one you wanted, but if it is PCIe needs to be > > > >>>>>> TYPC_PCIE_HOST_BRIDGE from pcie_host.h not the pci_host.h one > > > >>>>>> I think. =20 > > > >>>>> I think we need TYPE_PCI_HOST_BRIDGE as we want to check agains= t =20 > > > >> pxb =20 > > > >>>>> pci-bridge/pci_expander_bridge.c:=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 .parent=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =3D =20 > > > >>>> TYPE_PCI_HOST_BRIDGE, =20 > > > >> sorry but I still fail to understand why we can't just check again= st > > > >> > > > >> TYPE_PCI_HOST_BRIDGE for making sure the SMMU is attached to PXB or > > > >> GPEX. What does it fail to check? Why shall we care about PCI vs P= CIe? =20 > > > > I think the concern is getting any other TYPE_PCI_HOST_BRIDGE type= s =20 > > > attached =20 > > > > to SMMUv3 other than pxb-pcie or GPEX. For example you could do, > > > > > > > > -device pxb-cxl,bus_nr=3D12,bus=3Dpcie.0,id=3Dcxl.1 \ > > > > -device arm-smmuv3,primary-bus=3Dcxl.1,id=3Dsmmuv3.1 \ > > > > > > > > as pxb-cxl is of type TYPE_PCI_HOST_BRIDGE. I don't know if there a= re any =20 > > > other =20 > > > > ones similar to this out there. > > > > > > > > So the aim is to make the checking more specific to PXB. =20 > > >=20 > > > thank you for the clarification. Is it invalid to have the SMMU > > > protecting RIDs comming from the pxb-cxl hierarchy? =20 > >=20 > > That=E2=80=99s a good question. I don't know that for sure. =20 >=20 > It should be fine to support CXL for this but we can work that out later. >=20 > For now limited use cases as there is no CXL VFIO support and the only th= ing > emulated devices do that the SMMU might influence is MSIX. >=20 > The one that concerned me is pxb-pci if we only care about pcie. > I'm not sure if we need to make that distinction or not. =20 >=20 Hmm. Shameer pointed out I hallucinated the existence of a PCI only expande= r bridge. So ignore that. > Jonathan >=20 > > Anyway currently the full support for CXL on virt is in progress here, > > https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/20250612134338.1871023-1-Jonathan.Ca= meron@huawei.com/ > >=20 > > Jonathan? > >=20 > > Thanks, > > Shameer > > =20 > > > =20 > > =20 >=20