Re: your mail

[Will Deacon]

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:20:11AM +0000, srikanth TS wrote:
> 
> On Feb 25, 2014 2:28 AM, "Will Deacon" <will.deacon@xxxxxxx<mailto:will.deacon@xxxxxxx>> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 03:12:21PM +0000, srikanth TS wrote:
> > > Hi Will Deacon,
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > > Currently SMMU driver expecting all stream ID used by respective master
> > > should be defined in the DT.
> > >
> > > We want to know how to handle in the case of virtual functions dynamically
> > > created and destroyed.
> > >
> > > Is PCI driver responsible for creating stream ID respective BDand
> > > requesting SMMU to add to the mapping table[stream Id to context mapping
> > > table]?
> > >
> > > Or is there any right way of doing it?
> >
> > Correct, the driver currently doesn't support dynamic mappings (mainly
> > because I didn't want to try and invent something that I couldn't test).
> >
> > There are a couple of ways to solve this:
> >
> >   (1) Add a way for a PCI RC to dynamically allocate StreamIDs on an SMMU
> >       within a fixed range. That would probably need some code in the bus
> >       layer, so that a bus notifier can kick and call back to the relevant
> >       SMMU.
> 
> I think first way of solving seems to be better, because we don't know how many
> 
> VF are used and i feel its not good idea to keep whole list of streamID [which is
> 
> equal to max num vf] in DT. Again in this method we need to generate the stream ID
> 
> dynamically whenever VF is added in pci iov driver side. And then pass that
> 
> stream ID to SMMU.
> 
> Is it ok this way?  Or you prefer 2nd way which is simpler.

I'm happy either way, but I'd need to see some patches before I can merge
anything ;)

Will
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/