Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 4 Jun 2021 09:51:29 +0200 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] uacce: add print information if not enable sva |
| |
On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 03:46:09PM +0800, Kai Ye wrote: > Add print information necessary if user not enable sva. > > Signed-off-by: Kai Ye <yekai13@huawei.com> > --- > drivers/misc/uacce/uacce.c | 11 +++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/misc/uacce/uacce.c b/drivers/misc/uacce/uacce.c > index bae18ef0..fe38af8 100644 > --- a/drivers/misc/uacce/uacce.c > +++ b/drivers/misc/uacce/uacce.c > @@ -387,15 +387,22 @@ static void uacce_release(struct device *dev) > > static unsigned int uacce_enable_sva(struct device *parent, unsigned int flags) > { > + int ret; > + > if (!(flags & UACCE_DEV_SVA)) > return flags; > > flags &= ~UACCE_DEV_SVA; > > - if (iommu_dev_enable_feature(parent, IOMMU_DEV_FEAT_IOPF)) > + ret = iommu_dev_enable_feature(parent, IOMMU_DEV_FEAT_IOPF); > + if (ret) { > + dev_err(parent, "failed to enable IOPF feature! ret = %d\n", ret);
Why is this needed? Has this ever happened in real life such that the log message is now required?
> return flags; > + } > > - if (iommu_dev_enable_feature(parent, IOMMU_DEV_FEAT_SVA)) { > + ret = iommu_dev_enable_feature(parent, IOMMU_DEV_FEAT_SVA); > + if (ret) { > + dev_err(parent, "failed to enable SVA feature! ret = %d\n", ret);
Same here, does this happen in real systems?
thanks,
greg k-h
| |