From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S966254AbbJ1OH4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:07:56 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:37474 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965651AbbJ1OHx (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:07:53 -0400 Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:07:48 +0200 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: David Woodhouse Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Christian Borntraeger , Andy Lutomirski , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Joerg Roedel , Cornelia Huck , Sebastian Ott , Paolo Bonzini , Christoph Hellwig , KVM , Martin Schwidefsky , linux-s390 , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] virtio DMA API core stuff Message-ID: <20151028160531-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> References: <20151028091208-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <56307BD1.6010806@de.ibm.com> <1446021413.1856.28.camel@kernel.crashing.org> <20151028132115-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <1446039476.3405.217.camel@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1446039476.3405.217.camel@infradead.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:37:56PM +0900, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Wed, 2015-10-28 at 13:23 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 05:36:53PM +0900, Benjamin Herrenschmidt > > wrote: > > > On Wed, 2015-10-28 at 16:40 +0900, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > > We have discussed that at kernel summit. I will try to implement > > > > a dummy dma_ops for > > > > s390 that does 1:1 mapping and Ben will look into doing some > > > > quirk to handle "old" > > > > code in addition to also make it possible to mark devices as > > > > iommu bypass (IIRC, > > > > via device tree, Ben?) > > > > > > Something like that yes. I'll look into it when I'm back home. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Ben. > > > > OK so I guess that means we should prefer a transport-specific > > interface in virtio-pci then. > > Why? Because you said you are doing something device tree specific for ARM, aren't you? -- MST