On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 06:25:27PM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 10:39:59AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/linux/iommu.h b/include/linux/iommu.h
> > index 99dd72998cb7f7..082274e8ba6a3d 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/iommu.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/iommu.h
> > @@ -1534,12 +1534,16 @@ void iommu_debugfs_setup(void);
> > static inline void iommu_debugfs_setup(void) {}
> > #endif
> >
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_IOMMU_DMA
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_IOMMU_DMA) && IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IRQ_MSI_IOMMU)
> > int iommu_get_msi_cookie(struct iommu_domain *domain, dma_addr_t base);
> > +void iommu_put_msi_cookie(struct iommu_domain *domain);
> > #else /* CONFIG_IOMMU_DMA */
> > static inline int iommu_get_msi_cookie(struct iommu_domain *domain, dma_addr_t base)
> > {
> > - return -ENODEV;
> > + return 0;
>
> Should we keep the -ENODEV here for !CONFIG_IOMMU_DMA?
My feeling was if the system doesn't have an IRQ driver that needs
MSI_IOMMU but does have a IOMMU driver that reports SW_MSI reserved
regions then iommufd/vfio should not fail.
I don't think it is realistic that we'd ever hit this return.
Jason
