lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jun]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v8 1/3] iommu/arm-smmu: add NVIDIA implementation for dual ARM MMU-500 usage
From
Date


On 30/06/2020 17:23, Krishna Reddy wrote:
>>> +struct arm_smmu_device *nvidia_smmu_impl_init(struct arm_smmu_device
>>> +*smmu) {
>>> + unsigned int i;
> ....
>>> + for (i = 1; i < MAX_SMMU_INSTANCES; i++) {
>>> + struct resource *res;
>>> +
>>> + res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, i);
>>> + if (!res)
>>> + break;
>
>> Currently this driver is only supported for Tegra194 which I understand has 3 SMMUs. Therefore, I don't feel that we should fail silently here, I think it is better to return an error if all 3 cannot be initialised.
>
> Initialization of all the three SMMU instances is not necessary here.

That is not what I am saying.

> The driver can work with all the possible number of instances 1, 2 and 3 based on the DT config though it doesn't make much sense to use it with 1 instance.
> There is no silent failure here from driver point of view. If there is misconfig in DT, SMMU faults would catch issues.

I disagree and you should return a proper error here.

>>> + nvidia_smmu->bases[i] = devm_ioremap_resource(smmu->dev, res);
>>> + if (IS_ERR(nvidia_smmu->bases[i]))
>>> + return ERR_CAST(nvidia_smmu->bases[i]);
>
>> You want to use PTR_ERR() here.
>
> PTR_ERR() returns long integer.
> This function returns a pointer. ERR_CAST is the right one to use here.

Ah yes, indeed. OK that's fine.

Jon

--
nvpublic

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-06-30 18:33    [W:0.098 / U:0.828 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site