[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d007cbea-85c0-6c75-fc4a-e2872ff59ea4@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 15:48:25 +0800
From: Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@...aro.org>
To: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
jean-philippe <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
kenneth-lee-2012@...mail.com, Wangzhou <wangzhou1@...ilicon.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Introduce PCI_FIXUP_IOMMU
Hi, Joerg
On 2020/6/22 下午7:55, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 09:33:07PM +0800, Zhangfei Gao wrote:
>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
>> @@ -2418,6 +2418,10 @@ int iommu_fwspec_init(struct device *dev, struct
>> fwnode_handle *iommu_fwnode,
>> fwspec->iommu_fwnode = iommu_fwnode;
>> fwspec->ops = ops;
>> dev_iommu_fwspec_set(dev, fwspec);
>> +
>> + if (dev_is_pci(dev))
>> + pci_fixup_device(pci_fixup_final, to_pci_dev(dev));
>> +
> That's not going to fly, I don't think we should run the fixups twice,
> and they should not be run from IOMMU code. Is the only reason for this
> second pass that iommu_fwspec is not yet allocated when it runs the
> first time? I ask because it might be easier to just allocate the struct
> earlier then.
Thanks for looking this.
Yes, it is the only reason calling fixup secondly after iommu_fwspec is
allocated.
The first time fixup final is very early in pci_bus_add_device.
If allocating iommu_fwspec earlier, it maybe in pci_alloc_dev.
And assigning ops still in iommu_fwspec_init.
Have tested it works.
Not sure is it acceptable?
Alternatively, adding can_stall to struct pci_dev is simple but ugly too,
since pci does not know stall now.
Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists