On Thu, 4 Jun 2026 14:09:59 +0530 "Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)" <[email protected]> wrote:
> SWIOTLB_FORCE has no remaining in-tree users. Forced bouncing is now > controlled through the swiotlb=force command line option via > swiotlb_force_bounce. > > Remove the unused flag and simplify the force_bounce initialization. > > Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm) <[email protected]> > --- > include/linux/swiotlb.h | 1 - > kernel/dma/swiotlb.c | 3 +-- > 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/swiotlb.h b/include/linux/swiotlb.h > index 526f82e9da45..af88ca7182f4 100644 > --- a/include/linux/swiotlb.h > +++ b/include/linux/swiotlb.h > @@ -15,7 +15,6 @@ struct page; > struct scatterlist; > > #define SWIOTLB_VERBOSE (1 << 0) /* verbose initialization */ > -#define SWIOTLB_FORCE (1 << 1) /* force bounce buffering */ > #define SWIOTLB_ANY (1 << 2) /* allow any memory for the buffer */ These constants are kernel-internal, so let's not leave a hole in the bitmask... I mean, what about changing SWIOTLB_ANY to (1 << 1) after you remove SWIOTLB_FORCE? Other than that, LGTM. I consider this whole series a big step towards saner handling of encrypted/decrypted memory for DMA buffers. Thank you for your effort! Petr T > > /* > diff --git a/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c b/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c > index e4bd8c9eaeda..81cc4928e949 100644 > --- a/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c > +++ b/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c > @@ -400,8 +400,7 @@ void __init swiotlb_init_remap(bool addressing_limit, > unsigned int flags, > if (swiotlb_force_disable) > return; > > - io_tlb_default_mem.force_bounce = > - swiotlb_force_bounce || (flags & SWIOTLB_FORCE); > + io_tlb_default_mem.force_bounce = swiotlb_force_bounce; > > #ifdef CONFIG_SWIOTLB_DYNAMIC > if (!remap)
