updates to address issue 66 #87

ved-rivos · 2024-10-03T01:16:28Z

close #66

SiFiveHolland

Thanks, this is much clearer. LGTM with a few fixes.

One general editorial comment: this chapter isn't consistent between using "MTTCHK" and "IOMTTCHK".

chapter6.adoc

SiFiveHolland · 2024-10-03T23:50:11Z

chapter6.adoc

+
+If the aborted transaction is an IOMMU-initiated memory access then the IO bridge
+signals such access faults to the IOMMU itself. The details of such signaling is
+implementation defined.


On a related note: is it expected that IOMMU-initiated transactions (i.e. page table walks) go through the MTTCHK? If so, we should specify this.

It's stated here:

The MTTCHK uses the SDID to determine the MTT associated with the supervisor domain and checks if the physical address may be accessed by the device or IOMMU associated with that supervisor domain.

chapter6.adoc

rsahita

some minor changes proposed

ved-rivos · 2024-10-04T00:02:58Z

Thanks, this is much clearer. LGTM with a few fixes.

One general editorial comment: this chapter isn't consistent between using "MTTCHK" and "IOMTTCHK".

IOMTTCHK include SDCL and MTTCHK. The chapter refers broadly to IOMTTCHK when appropriate and to MTTCHK when MTT checking is discussed.

rsahita

lgtm

updates to address issue 66

f9a7a98

ved-rivos requested review from SiFiveHolland and rsahita October 3, 2024 01:16

ved-rivos mentioned this pull request Oct 3, 2024

MTT table entry with poison data #86

Closed

SiFiveHolland reviewed Oct 3, 2024

View reviewed changes

rsahita reviewed Oct 3, 2024

View reviewed changes