On 10.10.19 18:32, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi,
Hi
[1]
https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2019-10/msg00104.html
---
xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 29 insertions(+)
diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c b/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c
index 6d6dd52..a7321b8 100644
--- a/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c
+++ b/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c
@@ -480,10 +480,26 @@ static int __init write_properties(struct
domain *d, struct kernel_info *kinfo,
const struct dt_property *prop, *status = NULL;
int res = 0;
int had_dom0_bootargs = 0;
+ struct dt_device_node *iommu_node;
if ( kinfo->cmdline && kinfo->cmdline[0] )
bootargs = &kinfo->cmdline[0];
+ /*
+ * If we skip the IOMMU device when creating DT for hwdom
(even if
+ * the IOMMU device is not used by Xen), we should also skip
the IOMMU
+ * specific properties of the master device behind it in order
to avoid
+ * exposing an half complete IOMMU bindings to hwdom.
+ * Use "iommu_node" as an indicator of the master device which
properties
+ * should be skipped.
+ */
+ iommu_node = dt_parse_phandle(node, "iommus", 0);
The code is slightly confusing to read. I don't think we should care
of invalid DT here, so let's only consider valid one.
Do you mean "the comment" is confusing to read?
The code is confusing because "iommus" should always point to a IOMMU
node, but then you check whether this is an IOMMU. So it is not clear
if this is done for sanity check (or for a different reason).
Got it. Will clarify a reason.
--
Regards,
Oleksandr Tyshchenko
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
