Hi Jörg, On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 5:51 PM Joerg Roedel <j...@8bytes.org> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 10:54:18AM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote: > > On 2018-12-11 16:05, Joerg Roedel wrote: > > > From: Joerg Roedel <jroe...@suse.de> > > > > > > Make sure to invoke this call-back through the proper > > > function of the IOMMU-API. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Joerg Roedel <jroe...@suse.de> > > > --- > > > drivers/iommu/of_iommu.c | 6 +++--- > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/of_iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/of_iommu.c > > > index c5dd63072529..4d4847de727e 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/iommu/of_iommu.c > > > +++ b/drivers/iommu/of_iommu.c > > > @@ -218,10 +218,10 @@ const struct iommu_ops *of_iommu_configure(struct > > > device *dev, > > > ops = dev->iommu_fwspec->ops; > > > /* > > > * If we have reason to believe the IOMMU driver missed the initial > > > - * add_device callback for dev, replay it to get things in order. > > > + * probe for dev, replay it to get things in order. > > > */ > > > - if (ops && ops->add_device && dev->bus && !dev->iommu_group) > > > - err = ops->add_device(dev); > > > + if (dev->bus && !dev->iommu_group) > > > + err = iommu_probe_device(dev); > > > > This change removes a check for NULL ops, what causes NULL pointer > > exception on first device without IOMMU. > > Bummer, this check was supposed to be in iommu_probe_device(), but > apparently it got lost. Does the attached patch fix it? > > > I'm also not sure if this is a good idea to call iommu_probe_device(), > > which comes from dev->bus->iommu_ops, which might be different from ops > > from local variable. > > The local variable comes from dev->iommu_fwspec->ops, which should be > exactly the same as dev->bus->iommu_ops. I'll leave that for now until > it turns out to be a problem (which I don't expect). > > > Regards, > > Joerg > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c > index a2131751dcff..3ed4db334341 100644 > --- a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c > +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c > @@ -114,10 +114,14 @@ void iommu_device_unregister(struct iommu_device *iommu) > int iommu_probe_device(struct device *dev) > { > const struct iommu_ops *ops = dev->bus->iommu_ops; > + int ret = -EINVAL; > > WARN_ON(dev->iommu_group); > > - return ops->add_device(dev); > + if (ops)
Is this sufficient? The old code checked for ops->add_device != NULL, too. > + ret = ops->add_device(dev); > + > + return ret; > } > > void iommu_release_device(struct device *dev) Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu