On 2015/7/9 1:11, Will Deacon wrote: > Hi Robin, > > FWIW, I already queued this ;) > > On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 02:03:13PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote: >> On 07/07/15 04:30, Zhen Lei wrote: >>> Hisilicon SMMUv3 devices treat CMD_PREFETCH_CONFIG as a illegal command, >>> execute it will trigger GERROR interrupt. Although the gerror code manage >>> to turn the prefetch into a SYNC, and the system can continue to run >>> normally, but it's ugly to print error information. >> >> No mention of the DT binding change, and no corresponding documentation >> update either. > > I've added that.
Thank you very much. You are a real gentleman. > >>> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <[email protected]> >>> --- >> [...] >>> +static struct arm_smmu_option_prop arm_smmu_options[] = { >>> + { ARM_SMMU_OPT_SKIP_PREFETCH, "hisilicon,broken-prefetch-cmd" }, >>> + { 0, NULL}, >>> +}; >> [...] >>> +static void parse_driver_options(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu) >>> +{ >>> + int i = 0; >>> + >>> + do { >>> + if (of_property_read_bool(smmu->dev->of_node, >>> + arm_smmu_options[i].prop)) { >>> + smmu->options |= arm_smmu_options[i].opt; >>> + dev_notice(smmu->dev, "option %s\n", >>> + arm_smmu_options[i].prop); >>> + } >>> + } while (arm_smmu_options[++i].opt); >>> +} >>> + >> >> Nitpicking for sure, but I'm still waiting for a good excuse to rewrite >> this overcomplicated loop logic in the SMMUv2 driver - can't we just >> treat a static array as a static array and iterate over the thing in the >> obvious way? >> >> for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(arm_smmu_options); i++) > > I'd rather have consistency with the other driver and I really have no > personal preference about how we iterate over an array. If you have a > technical reason to change both the drivers, please send a patch. > > Will > > . > _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
