[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75VdnoOyKYbaNtr_UKn9NMSzXR1Syn9W7u0qtLgGuwYX6-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 00:23:18 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
iommu@...ts.linux.dev, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>, Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] OF: Simplify of_iommu_configure()
On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 8:47 PM Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com> wrote:
>
> We no longer have a notion of partially-initialised fwspecs existing,
> and we also no longer need to use an iommu_ops pointer to return status
> to of_dma_configure(). Clean up the remains of those, which lends itself
> to clarifying the logic around the dma_range_map allocation as well.
...
> + if (!err && dev->bus)
> + err = iommu_probe_device(dev);
>
> + if (err && err != -EPROBE_DEFER)
> + dev_dbg(dev, "Adding to IOMMU failed: %d\n", err);
Hmm... I'm wondering if dev_err_probe() can be used here.
> return err;
...
> + dev_dbg(dev, "device is%sbehind an iommu\n",
> + !ret ? " " : " not ");
Why not a positive test?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists