On 09/03/17 09:52, sricharan wrote:
> Hi Robin,
>
>> On 08/03/17 18:58, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
>> [...]
static const struct iommu_ops
-*of_pci_iommu_configure(struct pci_dev *pdev, struct device_node
*bridge_np)
+*of_pci_iommu_init(struct pci_dev *pdev, struct device_nod
Hi Robin,
>On 08/03/17 18:58, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
>[...]
>>> static const struct iommu_ops
>>> -*of_pci_iommu_configure(struct pci_dev *pdev, struct device_node
>>> *bridge_np)
>>> +*of_pci_iommu_init(struct pci_dev *pdev, struct device_node
>>> +*bridge_np)
>>> {
>>> const struct i
On 08/03/17 18:58, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
[...]
>> static const struct iommu_ops
>> -*of_pci_iommu_configure(struct pci_dev *pdev, struct device_node *bridge_np)
>> +*of_pci_iommu_init(struct pci_dev *pdev, struct device_node *bridge_np)
>> {
>> const struct iommu_ops *ops;
>> str
Hello,
On 03/02/17 15:48, Sricharan R wrote:
> From: Robin Murphy
>
> In preparation for some upcoming cleverness, rework the control flow in
> of_iommu_configure() to minimise duplication and improve the propogation
> of errors. It's also as good a time as any to switch over from the
> now-just
From: Robin Murphy
In preparation for some upcoming cleverness, rework the control flow in
of_iommu_configure() to minimise duplication and improve the propogation
of errors. It's also as good a time as any to switch over from the
now-just-a-compatibility-wrapper of_iommu_get_ops() to using the g
