On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 07:57:50PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 02 December 2014 14:16:57 Grant Likely wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:54 PM, Rob Herring <robherri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> +static inline void of_iommu_set_ops(struct device_node *np, > > >> + const struct iommu_ops *ops) > > >> +{ > > >> + np->data = (struct iommu_ops *)ops; > > >> +} > > >> + > > >> +static inline struct iommu_ops *of_iommu_get_ops(struct device_node *np) > > >> +{ > > >> + return np->data; > > >> +} > > > > > > This may collide with other users. While use of it is rare, PPC uses > > > it in its PCI code. The OF_DYNAMIC code frees it but never actually > > > sets it. There may be some coming usage with the DT overlay code or > > > that's just a bug. Pantelis or Grant can comment. If not, I think we > > > really should try to get rid of this pointer rather than expand it's > > > usage. > > > > > > I didn't see a user of this. I'm guessing that is coming in a SMMU patch? > > > > Good catch. This is not good. The data pointer should be avoided since > > there are no controls over its use. Until a better solution can be > > implemented, probably the safest thing to do is add a struct iommu_ops > > pointer to struct device_node. However, assuming that only a small > > portion of nodes will actually have iommu_ops set, I'd rather see a > > separate registry that matches device_nodes to iommu_ops. > > Fair enough. Will, can you take a copy of drivers/dma/of-dma.c and > adapt it as needed? It should be exactly what we need to start > out and can be extended and generalized later.
Sure, I'll add this to my list of stuff to do for 3.20. Will _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu