On 2020-06-19 14:02, Halil Pasic wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 11:20:51 +0200
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
+ if (arch_needs_virtio_iommu_platform(dev) &&
+ !virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM)) {
+ dev_warn(&dev->dev,
+ "virtio: device must provide VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM\n");
I'm not sure, divulging the current Linux name of this feature bit is a
good idea, but if everybody else is fine with this, I don't care that
Not sure if that feature name will ever change, as it is exported in
headers. At most, we might want to add the new ACCESS_PLATFORM define
and keep the old one, but that would still mean some churn.
much. An alternative would be:
"virtio: device falsely claims to have full access to the memory,
aborting the device"
"virtio: device does not work with limited memory access" ?
But no issue with keeping the current message.
I think I prefer Conny's version, but no strong feelings here.
The reason why the device is not accepted without IOMMU_PLATFORM is arch
specific, I think it should be clearly stated.
If no strong oposition...
Thanks,
Pierre
--
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen
