From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD02D320A0E for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2025 11:48:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.176.79.56 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763034542; cv=none; b=pigueCu9yZ6Y7g3NxfBFt30o+/h6KBMa1vyfMcrhcXfim38ROQHa3Xmz9qyZ4i8JkPaNAg3hTdHa/NuPTZ89KcGM9iRd5b5oaFqArgMRyZk2rizN9Mg2Uob72Tj2c5AUNyw73NxC6ggHjGvBhl4XPg/kG7yWtTgOkNfVw/h1py0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763034542; c=relaxed/simple; bh=a2g0IjUt34kU2RpiF+4FLlDER1grl/YUd6l7/XC5sj8=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=KMnJP+HmPKc2QHQltnbi2mHb8peSghXYinlsVTLMX++To5UJVM2fKwqhlFvJD4c2eE00la7hi8prq4H0JpacH5SHk6k7yDhuryTFYAuvBRP22ZL34mxLc/dVEvCn8WQeaEMEQMQh0wgowhE8XW4Q7g5kwIKlv6mSfyHJltDrx9M= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.176.79.56 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.31]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTPS id 4d6dnf4kSJzJ46Zp; Thu, 13 Nov 2025 19:48:22 +0800 (CST) Received: from dubpeml100005.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.214.146.113]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B02341402F5; Thu, 13 Nov 2025 19:48:56 +0800 (CST) Received: from localhost (10.203.177.15) by dubpeml100005.china.huawei.com (7.214.146.113) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.36; Thu, 13 Nov 2025 11:48:56 +0000 Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2025 11:48:54 +0000 From: Jonathan Cameron To: Dan Williams CC: , , Xu Yilun , Aneesh Kumar K.V , Arto Merilainen Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/8] PCI/IDE: Add Address Association Register setup for downstream MMIO Message-ID: <20251113114854.00005520@huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <20251113021446.436830-5-dan.j.williams@intel.com> References: <20251113021446.436830-1-dan.j.williams@intel.com> <20251113021446.436830-5-dan.j.williams@intel.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.3.0 (GTK 3.24.42; x86_64-w64-mingw32) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-coco@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: lhrpeml500012.china.huawei.com (7.191.174.4) To dubpeml100005.china.huawei.com (7.214.146.113) On Wed, 12 Nov 2025 18:14:42 -0800 Dan Williams wrote: > From: Xu Yilun > > The address ranges for downstream Address Association Registers need to > cover memory addresses for all functions (PFs/VFs/downstream devices) > managed by a Device Security Manager (DSM). The proposed solution is get > the memory (32-bit only) range and prefetchable-memory (64-bit capable) > range from the immediate ancestor downstream port (either the direct-attach > RP or deepest switch port when switch attached). > > Similar to RID association, address associations will be set by default if > hardware sets 'Number of Address Association Register Blocks' in the > 'Selective IDE Stream Capability Register' to a non-zero value. TSM drivers > can opt-out of the settings by zero'ing out unwanted / unsupported address > ranges. E.g. TDX Connect only supports prefetachable (64-bit capable) > memory ranges for the Address Association setting. > > If the immediate downstream port provides both a memory range and > prefetchable-memory range, but the IDE partner port only provides 1 Address > Association Register block then the TSM driver can pick which range to > associate, or let the PCI core prioritize memory. > > Note, the Address Association Register setup for upstream requests is still > uncertain so is not included. > > Co-developed-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V > Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V > Co-developed-by: Arto Merilainen > Signed-off-by: Arto Merilainen > Signed-off-by: Xu Yilun > Co-developed-by: Dan Williams > Signed-off-by: Dan Williams This addressed only comment I was expecting to result in changes in v1, so Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron