Hi, On 02/03/2017 13:38, Mian Yousaf Kaukab wrote: > On 03/02/2017 11:24 AM, Auger Eric wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 02/03/2017 11:01, Mian Yousaf Kaukab wrote: >>> Check only if irq domains are available. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Mian Yousaf Kaukab <yousaf.kaukab@xxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c | 5 +++-- >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c >>> b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c >>> index bd6f293c4ebd..e3ed50e40ead 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c >>> +++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c >>> @@ -1287,8 +1287,9 @@ static int vfio_iommu_type1_attach_group(void >>> *iommu_data, >>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&domain->group_list); >>> list_add(&group->next, &domain->group_list); >>> - msi_remap = resv_msi ? irq_domain_check_msi_remap() : >>> - iommu_capable(bus, IOMMU_CAP_INTR_REMAP); >>> + msi_remap = resv_msi && IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IRQ_DOMAIN) ? >>> + irq_domain_check_msi_remap() : >>> + iommu_capable(bus, IOMMU_CAP_INTR_REMAP); >> Is that patch actually needed after [PATCH 1/2] irqdomain: add empty >> irq_domain_check_msi_remap. irq_domain_check_msi_remap() should be >> defined and if you follow my suggestion, would return false. Anyway in >> your case resv_msi should be false. > I agree its an overkill if resv_msi is guaranteed to be false. What I am > unsure about is that, if iommu have IOMMU_RESV_MSI regions that would > mean that irq domains are selected in the build. If this is not > guaranteed, then we need to add this check. Currently only ARM SMMUs advertise IOMMU_RESV_MSI regions. If attempting to do passthrough on an ARM platform not implementing IRQ_DOMAIN the unsafe IRQ assignment mode would need to be chosen (if irq_domain_check_msi_remap() returns false as discussed before). Anyway checking the interrupt remapping capability on IOMMU side would report false as well since the capability is not exposed by ARM SMMU anymore. Thanks Eric > >> >> Thanks >> >> Eric > > BR, > Yousaf
