On Nov 21, 2017, at 11:37 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:

On 21.11.17 at 11:45, <george.dunlap@citrix.com> wrote:
On 11/21/2017 08:11 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 13.11.17 at 16:41, <george.dunlap@citrix.com> wrote:
+### ARM/SMMUv1
+
+    Status: Supported
+
+### ARM/SMMUv2
+
+    Status: Supported

Do these belong here, when IOMMU isn't part of the corresponding
x86 patch?

Since there was recently a time when these weren't supported, I think
it's useful to have them in here.  (Julien, let me know if you think
otherwise.)

Do you think it would be useful to include an IOMMU line for x86?

At this point of the series I would surely have said "yes". The
later PCI passthrough additions state this implicitly at least (by
requiring an IOMMU for passthrough to be supported at all).
But even then saying so explicitly may be better.

How much do we specifically need to break down?  AMD / Intel?

What about something like this?

### IOMMU

    Status, AMD IOMMU: Supported
    Status, Intel VT-d: Supported
    Status, ARM SMMUv1: Supported
    Status, ARM SMMUv2: Supported

 -George