On 2022-04-19 00:37, Lu Baolu wrote:
On 2022/4/19 6:09, Robin Murphy wrote:
On 2022-04-16 01:04, Lu Baolu wrote:
On 2022/4/14 20:42, Robin Murphy wrote:
@@ -1883,27 +1900,12 @@ static int iommu_bus_init(struct bus_type *bus)
*/
int bus_set_iommu(struct bus_type *bus, const struct iommu_ops *ops)
{
- int err;
-
- if (ops == NULL) {
- bus->iommu_ops = NULL;
- return 0;
- }
-
- if (bus->iommu_ops != NULL)
+ if (bus->iommu_ops && ops && bus->iommu_ops != ops)
return -EBUSY;
bus->iommu_ops = ops;
Do we still need to keep above lines in bus_set_iommu()?
It preserves the existing behaviour until each callsite and its
associated error handling are removed later on, which seems like as
good a thing to do as any. Since I'm already relaxing
iommu_device_register() to a warn-but-continue behaviour while it
keeps the bus ops on life-support internally, I figured not changing
too much at once would make it easier to bisect any potential issues
arising from this first step.
Fair enough. Thank you for the explanation.
Do you have a public tree that I could pull these patches and try them
on an Intel hardware? Or perhaps you have done this? I like the whole
idea of this series, but it's better to try it with a real hardware.
I haven't bothered with separate branches since there's so many
different pieces in-flight, but my complete (unstable) development
branch can be found here:
https://gitlab.arm.com/linux-arm/linux-rm/-/commits/iommu/bus
For now I'd recommend winding the head back to "iommu: Clean up
bus_set_iommu()" for testing - some of the patches above that have
already been posted and picked up by their respective subsystems, but
others are incomplete and barely compile-tested. I'll probably rearrange
it later this week to better reflect what's happened so far.
Cheers,
Robin.
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
