Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 5 Sep 2018 13:37:03 -0600
From:   Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
To:     Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
        Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@nvidia.com>, ashok.raj@intel.com,
        sanjay.k.kumar@intel.com, jacob.jun.pan@intel.com,
        kevin.tian@intel.com,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe.brucker@arm.com>,
        yi.l.liu@intel.com, yi.y.sun@intel.com, peterx@redhat.com,
        tiwei.bie@intel.com, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 03/10] iommu/amd: Add default branch in
 amd_iommu_capable()
Message-ID: <20180905133703.331c0c17@t450s.home>
In-Reply-To: <20180830040922.30426-4-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
References: <20180830040922.30426-1-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
        <20180830040922.30426-4-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 12:09:15 +0800
Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> Otherwise, there will be a build warning:
> 
> drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c:3083:2: warning: enumeration value
> 'IOMMU_CAP_AUX_DOMAIN' not handled in switch [-Wswitch]
> 
> There is no functional change.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c
> index 4e04fff23977..237ae6db4cfd 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c
> @@ -3077,6 +3077,8 @@ static bool amd_iommu_capable(enum iommu_cap cap)
>  		return (irq_remapping_enabled == 1);
>  	case IOMMU_CAP_NOEXEC:
>  		return false;
> +	default:
> +		break;
>  	}
>  
>  	return false;

Seems like a bug fix that doesn't need to be part of this RFC, send it
separately.  Thanks,

Alex