From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexey Kardashevskiy Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 03:44:04 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] drivers/vfio: EEH support for VFIO PCI device Message-Id: <5387FE84.5060502@ozlabs.ru> List-Id: References: <1401180052-6060-1-git-send-email-gwshan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1401180052-6060-4-git-send-email-gwshan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1401214527.3289.611.camel@ul30vt.home> <20140528005532.GA5528@shangw> <5385CB6F.50300@suse.de> <20140528124947.GA19346@shangw> <1401314311.8262.26.camel@pasglop> In-Reply-To: <1401314311.8262.26.camel@pasglop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Gavin Shan Cc: qiudayu@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Alex Williamson , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Alexander Graf , kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org On 05/29/2014 07:58 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Wed, 2014-05-28 at 22:49 +1000, Gavin Shan wrote: >> >> I will remove those "address" related macros in next revision because it's >> user-level bussiness, not related to host kernel any more. >> >> If the user is QEMU + guest, we need the address to identify the PE though PHB >> BUID could be used as same purpose to get PHB, which is one-to-one mapping with >> IOMMU group on sPAPR platform. However, once the PE address is built and returned >> to guest, guest will use the PE address as input parameter in subsequent RTAS >> calls. >> >> If the user is some kind of application who just uses the ioctl() without supporting >> RTAS calls. We don't need care about PE address. > > I am a bit reluctant with that PE=PHB equation we seem to be introducing. > > This isn't the case in HW. It is pseries, not real HW. Does phyp allow multiple real host PEs on the same virtual PHB? > It's possible that this is how we handle VFIO *today* > in qemu but it doesn't have to be does it ? > > It also paints us into a corner if we want to start implementing some kind of > emulated EEH for selected emulated devices and/or virtio. -- Alexey