[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2022 06:51:17 +0000
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>
CC: "will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
"iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com" <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
"suravee.suthikulpanit@....com" <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,
"vasant.hegde@....com" <vasant.hegde@....com>,
"mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com" <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>,
"gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com" <gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com>,
"schnelle@...ux.ibm.com" <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>,
"linux-s390@...r.kernel.org" <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 04/15] iommu: Move bus setup to IOMMU device
registration
> From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 1:08 AM
>
> @@ -202,12 +210,32 @@ int iommu_device_register(struct iommu_device
> *iommu,
> spin_lock(&iommu_device_lock);
> list_add_tail(&iommu->list, &iommu_device_list);
> spin_unlock(&iommu_device_lock);
> +
> + for (int i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(iommu_buses); i++) {
> + struct bus_type *bus = iommu_buses[i];
> + int err;
> +
> + if (bus->iommu_ops && bus->iommu_ops != ops) {
> + err = -EBUSY;
> + } else {
> + bus->iommu_ops = ops;
> + err = bus_iommu_probe(bus);
> + }
> + if (err) {
> + iommu_device_unregister(iommu);
> + return err;
> + }
> + }
> +
Probably move above into a new function bus_iommu_probe_all():
/* probe all buses for devices associated with this iommu */
err = bus_iommu_probe_all();
if (err) {
iommu_device_unregister(iommu);
return err;
}
Just my personal preference on leaving logic in iommu_device_register()
more relevant to the iommu instance itself.
Apart from that:
Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists