On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 11:21:48AM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c
> > index 2ed3594f384e..072cac5ab5a4 100644
> > --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c
> > @@ -1135,10 +1135,8 @@ static int arm_smmu_attach_dev(struct iommu_domain *domain, struct device *dev)
> > struct arm_smmu_device *smmu;
> > int ret;
> >
> > - if (!fwspec || fwspec->ops != &arm_smmu_ops) {
> > - dev_err(dev, "cannot attach to SMMU, is it on the same bus?\n");
> > - return -ENXIO;
> > - }
> > + if (!fwspec || fwspec->ops != &arm_smmu_ops)
> > + return -EMEDIUMTYPE;
>
> This is the wrong check, you want the "if (smmu_domain->smmu != smmu)"
> condition further down. If this one fails it's effectively because the
> device doesn't have an IOMMU at all, and similar to patch #3 it will be
Thanks for the review! I will fix that. The "on the same bus" is
quite eye-catching.
> removed once the core code takes over properly (I even have both those
> patches written now!)
Actually in my v1 the proposal for ops check returned -EMEDIUMTYPE
also upon an ops mismatch, treating that too as an incompatibility.
Do you mean that we should have fine-grained it further?
