On 17/08/17 08:58, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 03:02:31PM +0800, Shawn Lin wrote:
>> So should we revert this commit or maybe we could add some checking
>> into gic-v2m and gic-v3-its to see if the dev is iommu-capable? If not,
>> we should create another routine to map MSI msg.
>
> Yes, fixing this in gic code is the right approach. I usually don't
> revert patches to hide problems somewhere else.
Here's what it would look like:
diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
index b47097a3e4b4..5e81ad62c801 100644
--- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
+++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
@@ -1125,6 +1125,8 @@ static void its_irq_compose_msi_msg(struct irq_data *d,
struct msi_msg *msg)
{
struct its_device *its_dev = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
struct its_node *its;
+ struct iommu_group *group;
+ struct device *dev;
u64 addr;
its = its_dev->its;
@@ -1134,7 +1136,12 @@ static void its_irq_compose_msi_msg(struct irq_data *d,
struct msi_msg *msg)
msg->address_hi = upper_32_bits(addr);
msg->data = its_get_event_id(d);
- iommu_dma_map_msi_msg(d->irq, msg);
+ dev = msi_desc_to_dev(irq_get_msi_desc(d->irq));
+ group = iommu_group_get(dev);
+ if (group) {
+ iommu_dma_map_msi_msg(d->irq, msg);
+ iommu_group_put(group);
+ }
}
static int its_irq_set_irqchip_state(struct irq_data *d,
I'm not convinced that playing with the group refcount in an irqchip
is the right approach...
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
