Hi Jan On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 09:05:44AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 17.08.2023 02:39, Vikram Garhwal wrote: > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/xen/include/xen/iommu-private.h > > I don't think private headers should live in include/xen/. Judging from only > the patches I was Cc-ed on, ... Thank you for suggestion. Do you where can i place it then? Please see another comment down regarding who might be using this function. > > > @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */ > > +/* > > + * xen/iommu-private.h > > + */ > > +#ifndef __XEN_IOMMU_PRIVATE_H__ > > +#define __XEN_IOMMU_PRIVATE_H__ > > + > > +#ifdef CONFIG_HAS_DEVICE_TREE > > +#include <xen/device_tree.h> > > + > > +/* > > + * Checks if dt_device_node is assigned to a domain or not. This function > > + * expects to be called with dtdevs_lock acquired by caller. > > + */ > > +bool_t iommu_dt_device_is_assigned_locked(const struct dt_device_node > > *dev); > > +#endif > > ... I don't even see the need for the declaration, as the function is used > only from the file also defining it. But of course if there is a use > elsewhere (in Arm-only code, as is suggested by the description here), then > the header (under a suitable name) wants to live under drivers/passthrough/ > (and of course be included only from anywhere in that sub-tree). > This is also use in smmu.c:arm_smmu_dt_remove_device_legacy(). This is added in 12/19 patch(xen/smmu: Add remove_device callback for smmu_iommu ops).
I will make sure to cc you for all the patches in v9 series. I plan to send it today. > Jan
