Hi,
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 12:53:03PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> From: Joerg Roedel <[email protected]>
>
> Cc: Upinder Malhi <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Joerg Roedel <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/infiniband/hw/usnic/usnic_uiom.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/usnic/usnic_uiom.c
> b/drivers/infiniband/hw/usnic/usnic_uiom.c
> index 801a1d6..417de1f 100644
> --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/usnic/usnic_uiom.c
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/usnic/usnic_uiom.c
> @@ -507,7 +507,7 @@ int usnic_uiom_attach_dev_to_pd(struct usnic_uiom_pd *pd,
> struct device *dev)
> if (err)
> goto out_free_dev;
>
> - if (!iommu_domain_has_cap(pd->domain, IOMMU_CAP_CACHE_COHERENCY)) {
> + if (!iommu_capable(dev->bus, IOMMU_CAP_CACHE_COHERENCY)) {
> usnic_err("IOMMU of %s does not support cache coherency\n",
> dev_name(dev));
> err = -EINVAL;
Any objections against this? I would like to apply this series to the
iommu tree.
Joerg
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
