Hi Baolu, Sorry for the late reply, this slipped through the cracks. On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 03:28:11PM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote: > An iommu domain is allocated in rproc_enable_iommu() and is attached to > rproc->dev.parent in the same function. > > Use iommu_paging_domain_alloc() to make it explicit. > > Signed-off-by: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240610085555.88197-13-baolu.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > --- > drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > index f276956f2c5c..eb66f78ec8b7 100644 > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > @@ -109,10 +109,10 @@ static int rproc_enable_iommu(struct rproc *rproc) > return 0; > } > > - domain = iommu_domain_alloc(dev->bus); > - if (!domain) { > + domain = iommu_paging_domain_alloc(dev); I'm a little hesitant here. Function iommu_domain_alloc() passes NULL two the second argument of __iommu_domain_alloc() while iommu_paging_domain_alloc() provides a 'dev'. I don't have any HW to test on and I am not familiar enough with the IOMMU subsystem to confidently more forward. I am asking the Qualcomm (Bjorn and friends) and TI crew (Beleswar, Andrew, Nishanth and Hari) to test this patch on their IOMMU devices and get back to me with a "Tested-by". Thanks, Mathieu > + if (IS_ERR(domain)) { > dev_err(dev, "can't alloc iommu domain\n"); > - return -ENOMEM; > + return PTR_ERR(domain); > } > > iommu_set_fault_handler(domain, rproc_iommu_fault, rproc); > -- > 2.34.1 >
