[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240915140929.GA1834200@nvidia.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2024 11:09:29 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
Cc: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>, andersson@...nel.org, afd@...com,
nm@...com, hnagalla@...com, b-padhi@...com,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>, linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org,
iommu@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] remoteproc: Use iommu_paging_domain_alloc()
On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 01:24:25PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 10:17:56AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>
> > > - domain = iommu_domain_alloc(dev->bus);
> > > - if (!domain) {
> > > + domain = iommu_paging_domain_alloc(dev);
> >
> > I'm a little hesitant here. Function iommu_domain_alloc() passes NULL two the
> > second argument of __iommu_domain_alloc() while iommu_paging_domain_alloc()
> > provides a 'dev'. I don't have any HW to test on and I am not familiar enough
> > with the IOMMU subsystem to confidently more forward.
>
> So long as dev is the device that will be initiating DMA this is a
> correct change from the iommu subsystem perspective.
This is the only call site left for iommu_domain_alloc() - we want to
remove this API on the next cycle. Please take the patch
Thanks,
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists