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=-8.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable 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 CA5B4C3A5A5 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 06:34:30 +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 A9B9D20882 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 06:34:30 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org A9B9D20882 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com 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 54EFAC8F; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 06:34:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D413FC8E for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 06:34:28 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from huawei.com (szxga07-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.35]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 549B6709 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 06:34:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from DGGEMS404-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.58]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 44FED515EAFCE51C88B3; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 14:34:26 +0800 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.133.213.239) by DGGEMS404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.204) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.439.0; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 14:34:22 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Fix build error without CONFIG_PCI_ATS To: Will Deacon References: <20190903024212.20300-1-yuehaibing@huawei.com> <20190903063028.6ryuk5dmaohi2fqa@willie-the-truck> From: Yuehaibing Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 14:34:21 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190903063028.6ryuk5dmaohi2fqa@willie-the-truck> X-Originating-IP: [10.133.213.239] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected 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 2019/9/3 14:30, Will Deacon wrote: > 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? Ok, will send v2 as your suggestion. > > Will > > . > _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu