[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <de0b717f-af5c-8813-eb3e-07d19eff5271@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 17:41:50 +0300
From: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To: Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@...il.com>, thierry.reding@...il.com,
joro@...tes.org
Cc: vdumpa@...dia.com, jonathanh@...dia.com,
linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] iommu/tegra-smmu: Use fwspec in
tegra_smmu_(de)attach_dev
02.10.2020 09:08, 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)
> + return -ENOENT;
Could the !fwspec ever be true here as well?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists