Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [RFC PATCH 4/7] ide: IOMMU support

[Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>]

On 07/15/2010 07:52 PM, Chris Wright wrote:
>
>> Really? Can you provide an documentation to support this claim?
>> My impression is that there is no difference between translated and
>> untranslated devices, and the translation is explicitly disabled by software.
>>      
> ATS allows an I/O device to request a translation from the IOMMU.
> The device can then cache that translation and use the translated address
> in a PCIe memory transaction.  PCIe uses a couple of previously reserved
> bits in the transaction layer packet header to describe the address
> type for memory transactions.  The default (00) maps to legacy PCIe and
> describes the memory address as untranslated.  This is the normal mode,
> and could then incur a translation if an IOMMU is present and programmed
> w/ page tables, etc. as is passes through the host bridge.
>
> Another type is simply a transaction requesting a translation.  This is
> new, and allows a device to request (and cache) a translation from the
> IOMMU for subsequent use.
>
> The third type is a memory transaction tagged as already translated.
> This is the type of transaction an ATS capable I/O device will generate
> when it was able to translate the memory address from its own cache.
>
> Of course, there's also an invalidation request that the IOMMU can send
> to ATS capable I/O devices to invalidate the cached translation.
>    

For emulated device, it seems like we can ignore ATS completely, no?

-- 
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.