Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 14:48:36 -0400 From: Ryan Stone <rysto32@gmail.com> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, Neel Natu <neelnatu@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Support PCIe Alternative RID Interpretation (ARI) Message-ID: <CAFMmRNxQRJ2g9Ohu%2BXgj=tQ=tUrTdMQx1KSdd1k%2BjGMOtCZLEA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20140325211355.GG21331@kib.kiev.ua> References: <CAFMmRNzL3uBZ-djWgpnKi3XDQdq4c1ODAL_8E-Vpy-dPLa-hog@mail.gmail.com> <20140316141216.GA21331@kib.kiev.ua> <CAFMmRNwormaaPXk6rJ-JJGePS6fDNFsdKAfmmW2jGLNRscf1Pw@mail.gmail.com> <CAFgRE9F632zLseG7MobxgV5CdvD0KyMn28CBSwYqVtZKuLBwRw@mail.gmail.com> <CAFMmRNwCGVhyn5cU29YpsVq44Q5i51C38GVsz33xGeqNyemx0Q@mail.gmail.com> <20140319140236.GM21331@kib.kiev.ua> <CAFMmRNxM1E2aNtZV588V3BGkz1aOaGgAXGbgktYrmzT9M3EyVw@mail.gmail.com> <20140325211355.GG21331@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> wrote: > Well, either the interface I described is provided by pci core, or > iommu has to de-facto implement it itself. IMO it is clearer to have > it in pci, but I do not want to block your work on this. Yes, but this amounts to some simple masking and shifting on the RID. I don't think that's a very high burden. > I mean, that slot and func should be obtained using pci accessors where > needed. It is definitely not perf-critical, and I dislike having both > bsf and rid in the context structure more, then using accessors. Ok, I've updated the DMAR patch to use pci accessors instead. This required moving the initialization of ctx_tag.owner earlier in the initialization of the DMAR ctx, but beyond that the change was trivial.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAFMmRNxQRJ2g9Ohu%2BXgj=tQ=tUrTdMQx1KSdd1k%2BjGMOtCZLEA>