From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41F24C3A5A5 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 06:30:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org (mail.linuxfoundation.org [140.211.169.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0028922CF8 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 06:30:35 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="2flIbda+" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 0028922CF8 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=iommu-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Received: from mail.linux-foundation.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBFB9AD8; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 06:30:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4518AD1 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 06:30:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A9A6709 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 06:30:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from willie-the-truck (236.31.169.217.in-addr.arpa [217.169.31.236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BB09120882; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 06:30:32 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1567492233; bh=PNDgAQs78MSbUv+4jSX7U1x7Syw3aaKg9ZwbknDGfpU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=2flIbda+GBUm/IB7GHSnk6uGdGg0zgS5DOJ+/IYOI0/7RxHS85LYg1CpCRZ5uXKP+ 1xprgvh3okb4QOafNS8bl7iN0uwzrb5gsZMPqlFFm2mfJ/u2XkC71UU1Dypl1bZgCB giogOpYJbdIltm4YZZA3oIaIqs7T3Ca005jAjOcc= Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 07:30:29 +0100 From: Will Deacon To: YueHaibing Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Fix build error without CONFIG_PCI_ATS Message-ID: <20190903063028.6ryuk5dmaohi2fqa@willie-the-truck> References: <20190903024212.20300-1-yuehaibing@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190903024212.20300-1-yuehaibing@huawei.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Cc: robin.murphy@arm.com, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org X-BeenThere: iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues for Linux IOMMU support List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: iommu-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: iommu-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 10:42:12AM +0800, YueHaibing wrote: > If CONFIG_PCI_ATS is not set, building fails: > > drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c: In function arm_smmu_ats_supported: > drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c:2325:35: error: struct pci_dev has no member named ats_cap; did you mean msi_cap? > return !pdev->untrusted && pdev->ats_cap; > ^~~~~~~ > > ats_cap should only used when CONFIG_PCI_ATS is defined, > so use #ifdef block to guard this. > > Fixes: bfff88ec1afe ("iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Rework enabling/disabling of ATS for PCI masters") > Signed-off-by: YueHaibing > --- > drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c | 4 +++- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c > index 66bf641..44ac9ac 100644 > --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c > +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c > @@ -2313,7 +2313,7 @@ static void arm_smmu_install_ste_for_dev(struct arm_smmu_master *master) > > static bool arm_smmu_ats_supported(struct arm_smmu_master *master) > { > - struct pci_dev *pdev; > + struct pci_dev *pdev __maybe_unused; > struct arm_smmu_device *smmu = master->smmu; > struct iommu_fwspec *fwspec = dev_iommu_fwspec_get(master->dev); > > @@ -2321,8 +2321,10 @@ static bool arm_smmu_ats_supported(struct arm_smmu_master *master) > !(fwspec->flags & IOMMU_FWSPEC_PCI_RC_ATS) || pci_ats_disabled()) > return false; > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PCI_ATS > pdev = to_pci_dev(master->dev); > return !pdev->untrusted && pdev->ats_cap; > +#endif > } Hmm, I really don't like the missing return statement here, even though we never get this far thanks to the feature not getting set during ->probe(). I'd actually prefer just to duplicate the function: #ifndef CONFIG_PCI_ATS static bool arm_smmu_ats_supported(struct arm_smmu_master *master) { return false; } #else #endif Can you send a v2 like that, please? Will _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu