From: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>
To: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>
Cc: rjw@rjwysocki.net, lenb@kernel.org, joro@8bytes.org,
mst@redhat.com, will@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
baolu.lu@linux.intel.com, dwmw2@infradead.org,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, sebastien.boeuf@intel.com,
robin.murphy@arm.com, kevin.tian@intel.com,
lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com, guohanjun@huawei.com,
sudeep.holla@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/6] ACPI: Move IOMMU setup code out of IORT
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 09:41:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YMxOOq8YIBhRhzQM@myrica> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2c53c9cf-43e6-11c2-6ee3-530ad1f87aec@redhat.com>
Hi Eric,
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 11:35:13AM +0200, Eric Auger wrote:
> > -const struct iommu_ops *iort_iommu_configure_id(struct device *dev,
> > - const u32 *id_in)
> > +int iort_iommu_configure_id(struct device *dev, const u32 *id_in)
> > {
> > struct acpi_iort_node *node;
> > - const struct iommu_ops *ops;
> > + const struct iommu_ops *ops = NULL;
Oops, I need to remove this (and add -Werror to my tests.)
> > +static const struct iommu_ops *acpi_iommu_configure_id(struct device *dev,
> > + const u32 *id_in)
> > +{
> > + int err;
> > + const struct iommu_ops *ops;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If we already translated the fwspec there is nothing left to do,
> > + * return the iommu_ops.
> > + */
> > + ops = acpi_iommu_fwspec_ops(dev);
> > + if (ops)
> > + return ops;
> > +
> > + err = iort_iommu_configure_id(dev, id_in);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If we have reason to believe the IOMMU driver missed the initial
> > + * add_device callback for dev, replay it to get things in order.
> > + */
> > + if (!err && dev->bus && !device_iommu_mapped(dev))
> > + err = iommu_probe_device(dev);
> Previously we had:
> if (!err) {
> ops = iort_fwspec_iommu_ops(dev);
> err = iort_add_device_replay(dev);
> }
>
> Please can you explain the transform? I see the
>
> acpi_iommu_fwspec_ops call below but is it not straightforward to me.
I figured that iort_add_device_replay() is only used once and is
sufficiently simple to be inlined manually (saving 10 lines). Then I
replaced the ops assignment with returns, which saves another line and may
be slightly clearer? I guess it's mostly a matter of taste, the behavior
should be exactly the same.
> Also the comment mentions replay. Unsure if it is still OK.
The "replay" part is, but "add_device" isn't accurate because it has since
been replaced by probe_device. I'll refresh the comment.
Thanks,
Jean
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>
To: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>
Cc: kevin.tian@intel.com, mst@redhat.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
sudeep.holla@arm.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net, robin.murphy@arm.com,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
sebastien.boeuf@intel.com, guohanjun@huawei.com, will@kernel.org,
dwmw2@infradead.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
lenb@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/6] ACPI: Move IOMMU setup code out of IORT
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 09:41:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YMxOOq8YIBhRhzQM@myrica> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2c53c9cf-43e6-11c2-6ee3-530ad1f87aec@redhat.com>
Hi Eric,
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 11:35:13AM +0200, Eric Auger wrote:
> > -const struct iommu_ops *iort_iommu_configure_id(struct device *dev,
> > - const u32 *id_in)
> > +int iort_iommu_configure_id(struct device *dev, const u32 *id_in)
> > {
> > struct acpi_iort_node *node;
> > - const struct iommu_ops *ops;
> > + const struct iommu_ops *ops = NULL;
Oops, I need to remove this (and add -Werror to my tests.)
> > +static const struct iommu_ops *acpi_iommu_configure_id(struct device *dev,
> > + const u32 *id_in)
> > +{
> > + int err;
> > + const struct iommu_ops *ops;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If we already translated the fwspec there is nothing left to do,
> > + * return the iommu_ops.
> > + */
> > + ops = acpi_iommu_fwspec_ops(dev);
> > + if (ops)
> > + return ops;
> > +
> > + err = iort_iommu_configure_id(dev, id_in);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If we have reason to believe the IOMMU driver missed the initial
> > + * add_device callback for dev, replay it to get things in order.
> > + */
> > + if (!err && dev->bus && !device_iommu_mapped(dev))
> > + err = iommu_probe_device(dev);
> Previously we had:
> if (!err) {
> ops = iort_fwspec_iommu_ops(dev);
> err = iort_add_device_replay(dev);
> }
>
> Please can you explain the transform? I see the
>
> acpi_iommu_fwspec_ops call below but is it not straightforward to me.
I figured that iort_add_device_replay() is only used once and is
sufficiently simple to be inlined manually (saving 10 lines). Then I
replaced the ops assignment with returns, which saves another line and may
be slightly clearer? I guess it's mostly a matter of taste, the behavior
should be exactly the same.
> Also the comment mentions replay. Unsure if it is still OK.
The "replay" part is, but "add_device" isn't accurate because it has since
been replaced by probe_device. I'll refresh the comment.
Thanks,
Jean
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>
To: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>
Cc: lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com, mst@redhat.com,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, joro@8bytes.org, sudeep.holla@arm.com,
rjw@rjwysocki.net, robin.murphy@arm.com,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
sebastien.boeuf@intel.com, guohanjun@huawei.com,
baolu.lu@linux.intel.com, will@kernel.org, dwmw2@infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, lenb@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/6] ACPI: Move IOMMU setup code out of IORT
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 09:41:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YMxOOq8YIBhRhzQM@myrica> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2c53c9cf-43e6-11c2-6ee3-530ad1f87aec@redhat.com>
Hi Eric,
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 11:35:13AM +0200, Eric Auger wrote:
> > -const struct iommu_ops *iort_iommu_configure_id(struct device *dev,
> > - const u32 *id_in)
> > +int iort_iommu_configure_id(struct device *dev, const u32 *id_in)
> > {
> > struct acpi_iort_node *node;
> > - const struct iommu_ops *ops;
> > + const struct iommu_ops *ops = NULL;
Oops, I need to remove this (and add -Werror to my tests.)
> > +static const struct iommu_ops *acpi_iommu_configure_id(struct device *dev,
> > + const u32 *id_in)
> > +{
> > + int err;
> > + const struct iommu_ops *ops;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If we already translated the fwspec there is nothing left to do,
> > + * return the iommu_ops.
> > + */
> > + ops = acpi_iommu_fwspec_ops(dev);
> > + if (ops)
> > + return ops;
> > +
> > + err = iort_iommu_configure_id(dev, id_in);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If we have reason to believe the IOMMU driver missed the initial
> > + * add_device callback for dev, replay it to get things in order.
> > + */
> > + if (!err && dev->bus && !device_iommu_mapped(dev))
> > + err = iommu_probe_device(dev);
> Previously we had:
> if (!err) {
> ops = iort_fwspec_iommu_ops(dev);
> err = iort_add_device_replay(dev);
> }
>
> Please can you explain the transform? I see the
>
> acpi_iommu_fwspec_ops call below but is it not straightforward to me.
I figured that iort_add_device_replay() is only used once and is
sufficiently simple to be inlined manually (saving 10 lines). Then I
replaced the ops assignment with returns, which saves another line and may
be slightly clearer? I guess it's mostly a matter of taste, the behavior
should be exactly the same.
> Also the comment mentions replay. Unsure if it is still OK.
The "replay" part is, but "add_device" isn't accurate because it has since
been replaced by probe_device. I'll refresh the comment.
Thanks,
Jean
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>
To: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>
Cc: rjw@rjwysocki.net, lenb@kernel.org, joro@8bytes.org,
mst@redhat.com, will@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
baolu.lu@linux.intel.com, dwmw2@infradead.org,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, sebastien.boeuf@intel.com,
robin.murphy@arm.com, kevin.tian@intel.com,
lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com, guohanjun@huawei.com,
sudeep.holla@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/6] ACPI: Move IOMMU setup code out of IORT
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 09:41:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YMxOOq8YIBhRhzQM@myrica> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2c53c9cf-43e6-11c2-6ee3-530ad1f87aec@redhat.com>
Hi Eric,
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 11:35:13AM +0200, Eric Auger wrote:
> > -const struct iommu_ops *iort_iommu_configure_id(struct device *dev,
> > - const u32 *id_in)
> > +int iort_iommu_configure_id(struct device *dev, const u32 *id_in)
> > {
> > struct acpi_iort_node *node;
> > - const struct iommu_ops *ops;
> > + const struct iommu_ops *ops = NULL;
Oops, I need to remove this (and add -Werror to my tests.)
> > +static const struct iommu_ops *acpi_iommu_configure_id(struct device *dev,
> > + const u32 *id_in)
> > +{
> > + int err;
> > + const struct iommu_ops *ops;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If we already translated the fwspec there is nothing left to do,
> > + * return the iommu_ops.
> > + */
> > + ops = acpi_iommu_fwspec_ops(dev);
> > + if (ops)
> > + return ops;
> > +
> > + err = iort_iommu_configure_id(dev, id_in);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If we have reason to believe the IOMMU driver missed the initial
> > + * add_device callback for dev, replay it to get things in order.
> > + */
> > + if (!err && dev->bus && !device_iommu_mapped(dev))
> > + err = iommu_probe_device(dev);
> Previously we had:
> if (!err) {
> ops = iort_fwspec_iommu_ops(dev);
> err = iort_add_device_replay(dev);
> }
>
> Please can you explain the transform? I see the
>
> acpi_iommu_fwspec_ops call below but is it not straightforward to me.
I figured that iort_add_device_replay() is only used once and is
sufficiently simple to be inlined manually (saving 10 lines). Then I
replaced the ops assignment with returns, which saves another line and may
be slightly clearer? I guess it's mostly a matter of taste, the behavior
should be exactly the same.
> Also the comment mentions replay. Unsure if it is still OK.
The "replay" part is, but "add_device" isn't accurate because it has since
been replaced by probe_device. I'll refresh the comment.
Thanks,
Jean
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-18 7:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 96+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-10 7:51 [PATCH v4 0/6] Add support for ACPI VIOT Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-10 7:51 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-10 7:51 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-10 7:51 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-10 7:51 ` [PATCH v4 1/6] ACPI: arm64: Move DMA setup operations out of IORT Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-10 7:51 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-10 7:51 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-10 7:51 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-16 9:35 ` Eric Auger
2021-06-16 9:35 ` Eric Auger
2021-06-16 9:35 ` Eric Auger
2021-06-16 9:35 ` Eric Auger
2021-06-10 7:51 ` [PATCH v4 2/6] ACPI: Move IOMMU setup code " Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-10 7:51 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-10 7:51 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-10 7:51 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-16 9:35 ` Eric Auger
2021-06-16 9:35 ` Eric Auger
2021-06-16 9:35 ` Eric Auger
2021-06-16 9:35 ` Eric Auger
2021-06-18 7:41 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker [this message]
2021-06-18 7:41 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-18 7:41 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-18 7:41 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-18 9:16 ` Robin Murphy
2021-06-18 9:16 ` Robin Murphy
2021-06-18 9:16 ` Robin Murphy
2021-06-18 9:16 ` Robin Murphy
2021-06-10 7:51 ` [PATCH v4 3/6] ACPI: Add driver for the VIOT table Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-10 7:51 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-10 7:51 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-10 7:51 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-16 13:26 ` Eric Auger
2021-06-16 13:26 ` Eric Auger
2021-06-16 13:26 ` Eric Auger
2021-06-16 13:26 ` Eric Auger
2021-06-18 7:43 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-18 7:43 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-18 7:43 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-18 7:43 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-17 11:50 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-06-17 11:50 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-06-17 11:50 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-06-17 11:50 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-06-18 7:54 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-18 7:54 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-18 7:54 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-18 7:54 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-10 7:51 ` [PATCH v4 4/6] iommu/dma: Pass address limit rather than size to iommu_setup_dma_ops() Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-10 7:51 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-10 7:51 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-10 7:51 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-16 15:28 ` Eric Auger
2021-06-16 15:28 ` Eric Auger
2021-06-16 15:28 ` Eric Auger
2021-06-16 15:28 ` Eric Auger
2021-06-18 9:18 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-18 9:18 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-18 9:18 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-18 9:18 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-10 7:51 ` [PATCH v4 5/6] iommu/dma: Simplify calls " Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-10 7:51 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-10 7:51 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-10 7:51 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-16 15:50 ` Eric Auger
2021-06-16 15:50 ` Eric Auger
2021-06-16 15:50 ` Eric Auger
2021-06-16 15:50 ` Eric Auger
2021-06-16 17:02 ` Robin Murphy
2021-06-16 17:02 ` Robin Murphy
2021-06-16 17:02 ` Robin Murphy
2021-06-16 17:02 ` Robin Murphy
2021-06-18 10:50 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-18 10:50 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-18 10:50 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-18 10:50 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-18 11:19 ` Robin Murphy
2021-06-18 11:19 ` Robin Murphy
2021-06-18 11:19 ` Robin Murphy
2021-06-18 11:19 ` Robin Murphy
2021-06-10 7:51 ` [PATCH v4 6/6] iommu/virtio: Enable x86 support Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-10 7:51 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-10 7:51 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-10 7:51 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-16 15:52 ` Eric Auger
2021-06-16 15:52 ` Eric Auger
2021-06-16 15:52 ` Eric Auger
2021-06-16 15:52 ` Eric Auger
2021-06-16 6:34 ` [PATCH v4 0/6] Add support for ACPI VIOT Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-16 6:34 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-16 6:34 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-16 6:34 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2021-06-16 12:40 ` Eric Auger
2021-06-16 12:40 ` Eric Auger
2021-06-16 12:40 ` Eric Auger
2021-06-16 12:40 ` Eric Auger
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YMxOOq8YIBhRhzQM@myrica \
--to=jean-philippe@linaro.org \
--cc=baolu.lu@linux.intel.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=eric.auger@redhat.com \
--cc=guohanjun@huawei.com \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=kevin.tian@intel.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=sebastien.boeuf@intel.com \
--cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.