[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4037efc7-fbed-e8cf-dac7-212c65014e4e@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 17:32:41 +0100
From: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
To: Krishna Reddy <vdumpa@...dia.com>
CC: "joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
"will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
"robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>,
"Yu-Huan Hsu" <YHsu@...dia.com>, Sachin Nikam <Snikam@...dia.com>,
Pritesh Raithatha <praithatha@...dia.com>,
Timo Alho <talho@...dia.com>,
Bitan Biswas <bbiswas@...dia.com>,
Mikko Perttunen <mperttunen@...dia.com>,
Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>,
Bryan Huntsman <bhuntsman@...dia.com>,
"nicoleotsuka@...il.com" <nicoleotsuka@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/3] iommu/arm-smmu: add NVIDIA implementation for dual
ARM MMU-500 usage
On 30/06/2020 17:23, Krishna Reddy wrote:
>>> +struct arm_smmu_device *nvidia_smmu_impl_init(struct arm_smmu_device
>>> +*smmu) {
>>> + unsigned int i;
> ....
>>> + for (i = 1; i < MAX_SMMU_INSTANCES; i++) {
>>> + struct resource *res;
>>> +
>>> + res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, i);
>>> + if (!res)
>>> + break;
>
>> Currently this driver is only supported for Tegra194 which I understand has 3 SMMUs. Therefore, I don't feel that we should fail silently here, I think it is better to return an error if all 3 cannot be initialised.
>
> Initialization of all the three SMMU instances is not necessary here.
That is not what I am saying.
> The driver can work with all the possible number of instances 1, 2 and 3 based on the DT config though it doesn't make much sense to use it with 1 instance.
> There is no silent failure here from driver point of view. If there is misconfig in DT, SMMU faults would catch issues.
I disagree and you should return a proper error here.
>>> + nvidia_smmu->bases[i] = devm_ioremap_resource(smmu->dev, res);
>>> + if (IS_ERR(nvidia_smmu->bases[i]))
>>> + return ERR_CAST(nvidia_smmu->bases[i]);
>
>> You want to use PTR_ERR() here.
>
> PTR_ERR() returns long integer.
> This function returns a pointer. ERR_CAST is the right one to use here.
Ah yes, indeed. OK that's fine.
Jon
--
nvpublic
Powered by blists - more mailing lists