On 17/08/2021 16:12, Leonardo Brás wrote:

On Tue, 2021-08-17 at 02:59 -0300, Leonardo Brás wrote:

quoted

Hello Fred, thanks for the feedback!

On Tue, 2021-07-20 at 19:51 +0200, Frederic Barrat wrote:

quoted

On 16/07/2021 10:27, Leonardo Bras wrote:

quoted

Update remove_dma_window() so it can be used to remove DDW with a
given
property name.

This enables the creation of new property names for DDW, so we
can
have different usage for it, like indirect mapping.

Signed-off-by: Leonardo Bras <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <redacted>
---
   arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c | 21 +++++++++++--------
--
   1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c

b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c
index 108c3dcca686..17c6f4706e76 100644

--- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c

@@ -830,31 +830,32 @@ static void remove_dma_window(struct

device_node *np, u32 *ddw_avail,
                         np, ret,
ddw_avail[DDW_REMOVE_PE_DMA_WIN],
liobn);
   }
   
-static void remove_ddw(struct device_node *np, bool remove_prop)
+static int remove_ddw(struct device_node *np, bool remove_prop,
const char *win_name)
   {

Why switch to returning an int? None of the callers check it.

IIRC, in a previous version it did make sense, which is not the case
anymore. I will revert this.

Thanks!

Oh, sorry about that, it is in fact still needed:

Then you should have added it in 10/11.

It will make sense in patch v5 10/11:
On iommu_reconfig_notifier(), if (action == OF_RECONFIG_DETACH_NODE),
we need to remove a DDW if it exists.

As there may be different window names, it tests for DIRECT64_PROPNAME,
and if it's not found, it tests for DMA64_PROPNAME.

This approach will skip scanning for DMA64_PROPNAME if
DIRECT64_PROPNAME was found, as both may not exist in the same node.
But for this approach to work we need remove_ddw() to return error if
the property is not found.

Does it make sense? or should I just test for both?

Or you could just try removing both without checking the return code, it 
is one extra of_find_property in very rare code path. Not worth 
reposting though imho. (sorry I was off last week, catching up). Thanks,



-- 
Alexey