On 18.08.2023 21:52, Vikram Garhwal wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 09:05:44AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 17.08.2023 02:39, Vikram Garhwal wrote: >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/iommu-private.h >> >> I don't think private headers should live in include/xen/. Judging from only >> the patches I was Cc-ed on, ... > Thank you for suggestion. Do you where can i place it then?
Irrespective of Julien's reply (potentially rendering this moot), see ... > Please see another comment down regarding who might be using this function. >> >>> @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ >>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */ >>> +/* >>> + * xen/iommu-private.h >>> + */ >>> +#ifndef __XEN_IOMMU_PRIVATE_H__ >>> +#define __XEN_IOMMU_PRIVATE_H__ >>> + >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_HAS_DEVICE_TREE >>> +#include <xen/device_tree.h> >>> + >>> +/* >>> + * Checks if dt_device_node is assigned to a domain or not. This function >>> + * expects to be called with dtdevs_lock acquired by caller. >>> + */ >>> +bool_t iommu_dt_device_is_assigned_locked(const struct dt_device_node >>> *dev); >>> +#endif >> >> ... I don't even see the need for the declaration, as the function is used >> only from the file also defining it. But of course if there is a use >> elsewhere (in Arm-only code, as is suggested by the description here), then >> the header (under a suitable name) wants to live under drivers/passthrough/ ... my earlier reply. Jan >> (and of course be included only from anywhere in that sub-tree). >> > This is also use in smmu.c:arm_smmu_dt_remove_device_legacy(). This is added > in > 12/19 patch(xen/smmu: Add remove_device callback for smmu_iommu ops). > > I will make sure to cc you for all the patches in v9 series. I plan to send > it today. > >> Jan
