Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] iommu/tegra-smmu: Rework .probe_device and .attach_dev

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 08:39:54AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 30.09.2020 03:30, Nicolin Chen пишет:
> >  static int tegra_smmu_attach_dev(struct iommu_domain *domain,
> >  				 struct device *dev)
> >  {
> > +	struct iommu_fwspec *fwspec = dev_iommu_fwspec_get(dev);
> >  	struct tegra_smmu *smmu = dev_iommu_priv_get(dev);
> >  	struct tegra_smmu_as *as = to_smmu_as(domain);
> > -	struct device_node *np = dev->of_node;
> > -	struct of_phandle_args args;
> >  	unsigned int index = 0;
> >  	int err = 0;
> >  
> > -	while (!of_parse_phandle_with_args(np, "iommus", "#iommu-cells", index,
> > -					   &args)) {
> > -		unsigned int swgroup = args.args[0];
> > -
> > -		if (args.np != smmu->dev->of_node) {
> > -			of_node_put(args.np);
> > -			continue;
> > -		}
> > -
> > -		of_node_put(args.np);
> > +	if (!fwspec || fwspec->ops != &tegra_smmu_ops)
> > +		return -ENOENT;
> 
> s/&tegra_smmu_ops/smmu->iommu.ops/
> 
> Secondly, is it even possible that fwspec could be NULL here or that
> fwspec->ops != smmu->ops?

I am following what's in the arm-smmu driver, as I think it'd be
a common practice to do such a check in such a way.



[Index of Archives]     [ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux ARM MSM]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux