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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] iommu/tegra-smmu: Rework .probe_device and
 .attach_dev
To:     Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@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
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>
 <20200930213244.GA10573@Asurada-Nvidia>
From:   Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5945a63e-79d8-e3ae-ab53-cee8c220ac7d@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 1 Oct 2020 00:56:46 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200930213244.GA10573@Asurada-Nvidia>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

01.10.2020 00:32, Nicolin Chen пишет:
> 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"?
> 

I meant that you should try to implement Thierry's solution, but if the
end result will be worse than the current patch, then you shouldn't make
a v4, but get back to this discussion in order to choose the best option
and make everyone agree on it.