On 29/06/2020 23:49, Krishna Reddy wrote: >>> + if (!nvidia_smmu->bases[0]) >>> + nvidia_smmu->bases[0] = smmu->base; >>> + >>> + return nvidia_smmu->bases[inst] + (page << smmu->pgshift); } > >> Not critical -- just a nit: why not put the bases[0] in init()? > > smmu->base is not available during nvidia_smmu_impl_init() call. It is set > afterwards in arm-smmu.c. > It can't be avoided without changing the devm_ioremap() and impl_init() call > order in arm-smmu.c.
Why don't we move the call to devm_ioremap_resource() to before arm_smmu_impl_init() in arm_smmu_device_probe()? From a quick look I don't see why we cannot do this and seems better than what we are currently doing which is quite confusing and hard to understand. Jon -- nvpublic _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
