[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1237997202.2085.25.camel@macbook.infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:06:42 +0000
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
Cc: 'Ingo Molnar' <mingo@...e.hu>,
'Linus Torvalds' <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
'Stephen Rothwell' <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
"'iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org'"
<iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
'LKML' <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] Suspend and Resume Support for Intel IOMMU
On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 09:28 -0800, Yu, Fenghua wrote:
> >> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> >> >
> >> > +static int vtd_enabled;
> >> ..
> >> > +static int iommu_resume(struct sys_device *dev)
> >> > +{
> >> ..
> >> > + if (!vtd_enabled)
> >> > + return 0;
> >>
> >> Hmm. Why do this?
> >>
> >> Wouldn't it be much more logical to only register the
> >> iommu_sysdev if the thing is enabled, rather than having an
> >> odd flag that gets tested at runtime?
> >
> >The sysdev_class_register() could be done straight in
> >intel_iommu_init(), because that gets called by pci_iommu_init()
> >which is an fs_initcall() - so all the sysdev facilities should
> >be up and running already.
>
> That was my original concern. I'll remove the vtd_enabled flag and
> register device_iommu in intel_iommu_init() in an updated patch.
For some reason most of this thread is missing from my mailbox. Did you
ever submit this 'updated patch' that you threatened...?
--
David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre
David.Woodhouse@...el.com Intel Corporation
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists