On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 05:53:04PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote: > Back when this was first written, dma_supported() was somewhat of a > murky mess, with subtly different interpretations being relied upon in > various places. The "does device X support DMA to address range Y?" > uses assuming Y to be physical addresses, which motivated the current > iommu_dma_supported() implementation and are alluded to in the comment > therein, have since been cleaned up, leaving only the far less ambiguous > "can device X drive address bits Y" usage internal to DMA API mask > setting. As such, there is no reason to keep a slightly misleading > callback which does nothing but duplicate the current default behaviour; > we already constrain IOVA allocations to the iommu_domain aperture where > necessary, so let's leave DMA mask business to architecture-specific > code where it belongs. > > Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <[email protected]>
Applied, thanks _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
