On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 03:46:09PM +0800, Kai Ye wrote:
> Add print information necessary if user not enable sva.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kai Ye <yekai13@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/misc/uacce/uacce.c | 11 +++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/misc/uacce/uacce.c b/drivers/misc/uacce/uacce.c
> index bae18ef0..fe38af8 100644
> --- a/drivers/misc/uacce/uacce.c
> +++ b/drivers/misc/uacce/uacce.c
> @@ -387,15 +387,22 @@ static void uacce_release(struct device *dev)
>
> static unsigned int uacce_enable_sva(struct device *parent, unsigned int flags)
> {
> + int ret;
> +
> if (!(flags & UACCE_DEV_SVA))
> return flags;
>
> flags &= ~UACCE_DEV_SVA;
>
> - if (iommu_dev_enable_feature(parent, IOMMU_DEV_FEAT_IOPF))
> + ret = iommu_dev_enable_feature(parent, IOMMU_DEV_FEAT_IOPF);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(parent, "failed to enable IOPF feature! ret = %d\n", ret);
Why is this needed? Has this ever happened in real life such that the
log message is now required?
> return flags;
> + }
>
> - if (iommu_dev_enable_feature(parent, IOMMU_DEV_FEAT_SVA)) {
> + ret = iommu_dev_enable_feature(parent, IOMMU_DEV_FEAT_SVA);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(parent, "failed to enable SVA feature! ret = %d\n", ret);
Same here, does this happen in real systems?
thanks,
greg k-h
