From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (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 50B923148CA for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2025 19:55:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1757447752; cv=none; b=CQMmTS8of4ycytkcqJ8+iA0x3GLjjpTnICiaxM8O0+ZtS6Sh+PpbyvRG5DjO/7nHT2ubh2/nDwytttW1R+QECTJLYiKIaq7XUeuSkISV1FS5GcjRgfeVK2EgBkxPZsGyKhOK53DoEmlKYrtPB3XSGdo5TWUIh2FPc+BdELyrYrw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1757447752; c=relaxed/simple; bh=UBTwN9epOeHMQdtzqaWFx5uzJ4dIDcreN1C53Qvt8jo=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=EAeJbLERj8q94K2pf+q3zMxb0IVnmtF6Qkg03q3A2v/tueBtzyDD/pw/nvZI54TUa6emRSAlKYYfVko/2x2CH/fSvgajZNK6y94uzRlYn6DQd4HXSVptKVexvCcq+2tHH4ZkUMcAfkGmGsqxQz8unRvw5gkbOmw5Q8N6VlL2M8w= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=Ux5OsOQf; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="Ux5OsOQf" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1757447750; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=VwEaYTkppqVE2bssVNAxlDikzdrxi/t7gGAUHOOn71I=; b=Ux5OsOQf3PKHRiVmu/5qhgSfC7Wy0a8ijCVmrXaWLmHsD66m7ZTnSr5O1lM9wsc0ZVQLSR JOQxOswqQr63+o+k0R3R9VmcJNrb73jZyNH9fCuEzkJ355QNW4eRt973mc58BM8tURHcvg n8BD7KsivgE97iVJWb5opZm+Qufxb7s= Received: from mail-qk1-f199.google.com (mail-qk1-f199.google.com [209.85.222.199]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-652-obp2urFbOIuRw8Un6DJegQ-1; Tue, 09 Sep 2025 15:55:47 -0400 X-MC-Unique: obp2urFbOIuRw8Un6DJegQ-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: obp2urFbOIuRw8Un6DJegQ_1757447746 Received: by mail-qk1-f199.google.com with SMTP id af79cd13be357-8063443ef8cso2410332385a.1 for ; Tue, 09 Sep 2025 12:55:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1757447746; x=1758052546; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=VwEaYTkppqVE2bssVNAxlDikzdrxi/t7gGAUHOOn71I=; b=M0bIv6ii42EUcccN3t7Uwxa96XWpsEjQdGNKaed5QYEqyDRelOKxiXauVPHabw9PDJ cAFLuk1+snnnGiuydK2rJO+63VD34KHL8L6uDfGNXo0JCQMUfuEllHkGS1eG/Z6NmB9Q r3sEvPTzkJIe93BOvYwSDoNxPqbJVp73A12wrn5Vb/XNDOuodkWQtp+4shSADniK5V6Z AthD+0cLE7FvNpjCmcxhAnpgp9XNrB3EvXCTwE/1zhmYufhvFDFrbuGeOm915UhVk0sl trRqrbWzUh2tvuW46OjcKqQmTJGvZeCsluUluwqS/sWuJdUhzqvB9CVR14H7bGULEEiL kIzg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWOg3uA4jVuZ9txvqaUzZv7zu1r9Ndf64jq6pCh9/Y6l7L4qqgMuwgtk+Jxk90SFQS9vhAKmkD5esI=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzBpmefyvjcbphVrpvcWX1pkiOLRSinOv5R++dy3SdaMtKBXgIG AIRY4jpajIdIX67Pz9UTAjIibh0f80PWVPcCutTb14cavozL45KK7JKQZRPkPUDT8zIbFOFLGrs XcFBU6ntPL6x/sF2RVGp5GAD/wQoScBZuhb9rO7aa/1yhpDFro2HRSYWAC0Ctbw== X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncvw/t+PTXdZDhB/PrQRkTB4fGDZP6cn+ieev63Xvj+cigLKpCYCL/g+PKqEjG2 m1nh7+yNXEJG893X3tzfQUnS5I+4hZ27E1prO0O3UR2w6rzEao6soFMgBEfbpLkPuP2UmZmsGT8 88b2me2s5SfL8NngfMfiT9fkioOq2ujqrGPBlYRJP91e0ypaBfwCMdk2YKdZ5q++MJLm9aBTnn4 Z4hOv1HbEAmjtTLSxpA87TGZyDF7hzDB93RZiGVtP8WO+dUMYfOfWb9/fO/426AdaajoHoaKNdb JcIVQz6iU/nl6GmutZXL8DdNU5Lov3RAMaeNgXQC X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:2695:b0:813:ccb9:509f with SMTP id af79cd13be357-813ccb9510emr1236086185a.5.1757447746528; Tue, 09 Sep 2025 12:55:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFaAcXU8kXFobnNvUqNWSUsQz0woT7+jL6jE0MUCrwRybPYjUTXel6RI/GHw+5Xzip867Mnsw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:2695:b0:813:ccb9:509f with SMTP id af79cd13be357-813ccb9510emr1236082685a.5.1757447746092; Tue, 09 Sep 2025 12:55:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.40.164] ([70.105.235.240]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 6a1803df08f44-73a16bb3ff5sm74385076d6.1.2025.09.09.12.55.44 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Sep 2025 12:55:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <25676d12-57f0-4f54-8554-a6d77d2c6631@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 15:55:43 -0400 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/11] iommu: Compute iommu_groups properly for PCIe MFDs Content-Language: en-US To: Jason Gunthorpe Cc: Bjorn Helgaas , iommu@lists.linux.dev, Joerg Roedel , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Robin Murphy , Will Deacon , Alex Williamson , Lu Baolu , galshalom@nvidia.com, Joerg Roedel , Kevin Tian , kvm@vger.kernel.org, maorg@nvidia.com, patches@lists.linux.dev, tdave@nvidia.com, Tony Zhu References: <6-v3-8827cc7fc4e0+23f-pcie_switch_groups_jgg@nvidia.com> <20250909133128.GK789684@nvidia.com> From: Donald Dutile In-Reply-To: <20250909133128.GK789684@nvidia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 9/9/25 9:31 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, Sep 09, 2025 at 12:57:59AM -0400, Donald Dutile wrote: > >> ... and why was the above code done in patch 3 and then undone here to >> use the reachable() support in patch 5 below, when patch 5 could be moved before >> patch 3, and we just get to this final implementation, dropping (some of) patch 3? > > If you use that order then the switch stuff has to be done and redone :( > > I put it in this order because the switch change seems lower risk to > me. Fewer people have switches in their system. While the MFD change > on top is higher risk, even my simple consumer test systems hit > troubles with it. > In 'my world' I see -lots- of switches in servers. I don't disagree on the MFD being a higher risk, and more common across all systems. > Jason > poe-tay-toe, poh-tah-toh... It gets to the end point needed. Thanks for reasoning... Reviewed-by: Donald Dutile