Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 5/25] Xen/doc: Add Xen virtual IOMMU doc

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

On 07/12/2017 04:09 AM, Lan Tianyu wrote:
> On 2017年07月08日 00:08, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > Because we now just have onE vIOMMU, all virtual interrupt will be bound
> > > to it. If need to support mult-vIOMMU, we can add device-scope
> > > field(sbdf array or some thing like that) in the structure and specify
> > > what devices should be under one vIOMMU.
> > I am not sure to follow the argument here. Even if you have only one
> > vIOMMU you need to be able to do the correspondence between the virtual
> > MasterID (for PCI it is based on the RID) and the host MasterID.

>       Sorry for later response.
>       MasterID you mentioned here is sbdf, right? Binding between sbdf
> and vsbdf(virtual sbdf) should be in the device pass through related
> interface(e.g, xc_domain_bind_pt_irq_int() has already done such similar
> thing that bind vsbdf with real interrupt of hypervisor.).
The MasterID is not the sbdf. It is an identifier based on the tuple 
(Hostbridge, Requester ID). The RequesterID (RID), might be the bdf of 
the device or something different if there is DMA aliases.
The relation between MasterID and the tuple is defined by the hardware 
and will be reported by the firmware tables.
>       vIOMMU device model can get vsbdf when guest configure vIOMMU entry
> and hypervisor can do conversion between sbdf and vsbdf. For interrupt
> remapping on virtual VTD, we don't find such requirement so far and got
> enough data from IOAPIC/MSI entry and interrupt remapping entry of
> virtual VTD. So we don't extend pass through interface.
Well, you have to think how this could be extended in the future. This 
is quite important to plan head for stable ABI. Thankfully, you seem to 
use DOMCTL, so I guess we don't have to worry too much...
Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel