On 7/11/2014 3:20 AM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 09:51:51AM -0700, Olav Haugan wrote:
>> +int iommu_map_range(struct iommu_domain *domain, unsigned int iova,
>> + struct scatterlist *sg, unsigned int len, int prot)
>> +{
>> + if (unlikely(domain->ops->map_range == NULL))
>> + return -ENODEV;
>> +
>> + BUG_ON(iova & (~PAGE_MASK));
>> +
>> + return domain->ops->map_range(domain, iova, sg, len, prot);
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(iommu_map_range);
>> +
>> +int iommu_unmap_range(struct iommu_domain *domain, unsigned int iova,
>> + unsigned int len)
>> +{
>> + if (unlikely(domain->ops->unmap_range == NULL))
>> + return -ENODEV;
>> +
>> + BUG_ON(iova & (~PAGE_MASK));
>> +
>> + return domain->ops->unmap_range(domain, iova, len);
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(iommu_unmap_range);
>
> Before introducing these new API functions there should be a fall-back
> for IOMMU drivers that do (not yet) implement the map_range and
> unmap_range call-backs.
>
> The last thing we want is this kind of functional partitioning between
> different IOMMU drivers.
Yes, I can definitely add a fallback instead of returning -ENODEV.
Thanks,
Olav
--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
