Hi Robin,
FWIW, I already queued this ;)
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 02:03:13PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 07/07/15 04:30, Zhen Lei wrote:
> > Hisilicon SMMUv3 devices treat CMD_PREFETCH_CONFIG as a illegal command,
> > execute it will trigger GERROR interrupt. Although the gerror code manage
> > to turn the prefetch into a SYNC, and the system can continue to run
> > normally, but it's ugly to print error information.
>
> No mention of the DT binding change, and no corresponding documentation
> update either.
I've added that.
> > Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leiz...@huawei.com>
> > ---
> [...]
> > +static struct arm_smmu_option_prop arm_smmu_options[] = {
> > + { ARM_SMMU_OPT_SKIP_PREFETCH, "hisilicon,broken-prefetch-cmd" },
> > + { 0, NULL},
> > +};
> [...]
> > +static void parse_driver_options(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> > +{
> > + int i = 0;
> > +
> > + do {
> > + if (of_property_read_bool(smmu->dev->of_node,
> > + arm_smmu_options[i].prop)) {
> > + smmu->options |= arm_smmu_options[i].opt;
> > + dev_notice(smmu->dev, "option %s\n",
> > + arm_smmu_options[i].prop);
> > + }
> > + } while (arm_smmu_options[++i].opt);
> > +}
> > +
>
> Nitpicking for sure, but I'm still waiting for a good excuse to rewrite
> this overcomplicated loop logic in the SMMUv2 driver - can't we just
> treat a static array as a static array and iterate over the thing in the
> obvious way?
>
> for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(arm_smmu_options); i++)
I'd rather have consistency with the other driver and I really have no
personal preference about how we iterate over an array. If you have a
technical reason to change both the drivers, please send a patch.
Will
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
