[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200930054119.GE31821@Asurada-Nvidia>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 22:41:20 -0700
From: Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@...il.com>
To: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
Cc: thierry.reding@...il.com, joro@...tes.org, krzk@...nel.org,
vdumpa@...dia.com, jonathanh@...dia.com,
linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] iommu/tegra-smmu: Rework .probe_device and
.attach_dev
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 08:39:54AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 30.09.2020 03:30, Nicolin Chen пишет:
> > static int tegra_smmu_attach_dev(struct iommu_domain *domain,
> > struct device *dev)
> > {
> > + struct iommu_fwspec *fwspec = dev_iommu_fwspec_get(dev);
> > struct tegra_smmu *smmu = dev_iommu_priv_get(dev);
> > struct tegra_smmu_as *as = to_smmu_as(domain);
> > - struct device_node *np = dev->of_node;
> > - struct of_phandle_args args;
> > unsigned int index = 0;
> > int err = 0;
> >
> > - while (!of_parse_phandle_with_args(np, "iommus", "#iommu-cells", index,
> > - &args)) {
> > - unsigned int swgroup = args.args[0];
> > -
> > - if (args.np != smmu->dev->of_node) {
> > - of_node_put(args.np);
> > - continue;
> > - }
> > -
> > - of_node_put(args.np);
> > + if (!fwspec || fwspec->ops != &tegra_smmu_ops)
> > + return -ENOENT;
>
> s/&tegra_smmu_ops/smmu->iommu.ops/
>
> Secondly, is it even possible that fwspec could be NULL here or that
> fwspec->ops != smmu->ops?
I am following what's in the arm-smmu driver, as I think it'd be
a common practice to do such a check in such a way.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists