From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Santosh Shukla <sshukla@mvista.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 6/8] virtio: add vfio api to rd/wr ioport
	space
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 11:32:11 +0530
Message-ID: <CAAyOgsaTRXtT-sUTqLuu0S+7zSp2+w-m_ZSuOYJK9+qEBRHLMQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1454091717-32251-1-git-send-email-sshukla@mvista.com>
 <1454091717-32251-6-git-send-email-sshukla@mvista.com>
 <20160201124845.GC4257@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
 <CAAyOgsYTqM=G6tT=T7r0NX6J3trPnXagch-ddAjZDhBbkmEQUQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160202051912.GH4257@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Rakesh Krishnamurthy <rakeshk@mvista.com>,
 Rizwan Ansari <ransari@mvista.com>
To: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-pf0-f172.google.com (mail-pf0-f172.google.com
 [209.85.192.172]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 935B293C0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue,  2 Feb 2016 07:02:12 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-pf0-f172.google.com with SMTP id 65so97221559pfd.2
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 01 Feb 2016 22:02:12 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20160202051912.GH4257@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Yuanhan Liu
<yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 10:00:36AM +0530, Santosh Shukla wrote:
>> >
>> > BTW, I didn't follow the noIOMMU discussion; how did it end? Do we still
>> > need that? Is this patch a full story to enable virtio on ARM?
>> >
>> Ok, We agreed that explicit __noiommu suffix not required, atleast for
>> rte_xx_drv struct{}, as because sooner than later we'll have virtio
>> working for both flavours ie... iommu/noiommu. My only worry was
>> parsing for _noiommu and default vfio case, as because noiomu needed
>> user to preset "enable_noiommu_" param for vfio driver to do mode
>> switch. But we wont need that parsing as because if param is not set
>> then binding won't happen, which Thomas rightly pointed out, therefore
>> I choose to drop resource parsing for virtio-for-vfio case, now virtio
>> driver to check only drv->kdrv == RTE_KDRV_VFIO so to make sure
>> interface attached to vfio or not.
>>
>> But perhaps when we have both flavours working for virtio, then we
>> should at least prompt a  INFO message on console that virtio pmd
>> driver attached to default vfio or noIOMMU.
>>
>> So we don't need explicit _noIOMMU.
>
> Thanks for the explanation.
>>
>> Yes this patch is to enable non-x86 arch to use virtio pmd driver
>> (virtio 0.95 spec). After this patch merges-in, I am planning to
>> - replace sys/io.h entirely
>
> Hmm, be more specific? Replace it with what?
>

Just to remove ifdef clutter in general from dpdk source and mo

>> - Add raw_read/raw_writel() api for arm/arm64 {Already proposed
>> similar implementation in v2} so that they could use virtio 1.0spec
>> mapped memory, for both UIO/VFIO mode.
>
> PCI memory bar mapping works both with UIO/VFIO on ARM, without
> any extra efforts, right? If so, it should just work with my
> patch set and yours.
>

Mostl likely, That I have not tried. (todo),
>         --yliu