[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8722e4bc-efe0-27c4-2b7d-626188da5bfb@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 17:24:51 +0100
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To: Charan Teja Reddy <charante@...eaurora.org>, joro@...tes.org,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommu: of: skip iommu_device_list traversal in
of_iommu_xlate()
On 2020-09-23 15:53, Charan Teja Reddy wrote:
> In of_iommu_xlate(), check if iommu device is enabled before traversing
> the iommu_device_list through iommu_ops_from_fwnode(). It is of no use
> in traversing the iommu_device_list only to return NO_IOMMU because of
> iommu device node is disabled.
Well, the "use" is that it keeps the code that much smaller and simpler
to have a single path for returning this condition. This whole callstack
isn't exactly a high-performance code path to begin with, and we've
always assumed that IOMMUs present but disabled in DT would be a pretty
rare exception. Do you have a system that challenges those assumptions
and shows any benefit from this change?
Robin.
> Signed-off-by: Charan Teja Reddy <charante@...eaurora.org>
> ---
> drivers/iommu/of_iommu.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/of_iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/of_iommu.c
> index e505b91..225598c 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/of_iommu.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/of_iommu.c
> @@ -94,9 +94,10 @@ static int of_iommu_xlate(struct device *dev,
> struct fwnode_handle *fwnode = &iommu_spec->np->fwnode;
> int ret;
>
> + if (!of_device_is_available(iommu_spec->np))
> + return NO_IOMMU;
> ops = iommu_ops_from_fwnode(fwnode);
> - if ((ops && !ops->of_xlate) ||
> - !of_device_is_available(iommu_spec->np))
> + if (ops && !ops->of_xlate)
> return NO_IOMMU;
>
> ret = iommu_fwspec_init(dev, &iommu_spec->np->fwnode, ops);
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists