Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 30 Sep 2020 14:32:44 -0700
From:   Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@gmail.com>
To:     Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>
Cc:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>, joro@8bytes.org,
        krzk@kernel.org, vdumpa@nvidia.com, jonathanh@nvidia.com,
        linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] iommu/tegra-smmu: Rework .probe_device and
 .attach_dev
Message-ID: <20200930213244.GA10573@Asurada-Nvidia>
References: <20200930084258.25493-1-nicoleotsuka@gmail.com>
 <20200930084258.25493-3-nicoleotsuka@gmail.com>
 <20200930153131.GB3833404@ulmo>
 <20200930203618.GC2110@Asurada-Nvidia>
 <13746922-0253-cda7-e9ac-2bd20bf1a17f@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <13746922-0253-cda7-e9ac-2bd20bf1a17f@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 12:24:25AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> ...
> >> It looks to me like the only reason why you need this new global API is
> >> because PCI devices may not have a device tree node with a phandle to
> >> the IOMMU. However, SMMU support for PCI will only be enabled if the
> >> root complex has an iommus property, right? In that case, can't we
> >> simply do something like this:
> >>
> >> 	if (dev_is_pci(dev))
> >> 		np = find_host_bridge(dev)->of_node;
> >> 	else
> >> 		np = dev->of_node;
> >>
> >> ? I'm not sure exactly what find_host_bridge() is called, but I'm pretty
> >> sure that exists.
> >>
> >> Once we have that we can still iterate over the iommus property and do
> >> not need to rely on this global variable.
> > 
> > I agree that it'd work. But I was hoping to simplify the code
> > here if it's possible. Looks like we have an argument on this
> > so I will choose to go with your suggestion above for now.
> 
> This patch removed more lines than were added. If this will be opposite
> for the Thierry's suggestion, then it's probably not a great suggestion.

Sorry, I don't quite understand this comments. Would you please
elaborate what's this "it" being "not a great suggestion"?