From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: joro@8bytes.org (Joerg Roedel)
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 17:29:43 +0100
Subject: [GIT PULL] iommu/arm-smmu: Fixes for 4.9
In-Reply-To: <0dbf2665-4292-d49a-b9e7-688bcdf29c6e@arm.com>
References: <20161028160148.GD1076@arm.com> <20161103153303.GA837@8bytes.org>
 <20161103160006.GS22791@arm.com> <20161103161407.GR3541@8bytes.org>
 <0dbf2665-4292-d49a-b9e7-688bcdf29c6e@arm.com>
Message-ID: <20161103162943.GS3541@8bytes.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 04:22:04PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> But bus_set_iommu() is already checking whether another SMMU (in this
> case) has probed, by virtue of bus->iommu_ops being non-NULL, and
> returning without doing anything if so. What's the value of adding a
> whole  bunch more code to effectively duplicate that in a less elegant
> manner?

No, bus_set_iommu() checks whether there is _any_ other IOMMU already
registered. This doesn't need to be an smmu. So I think the return value
of bus_set_iommu shouldn't be generally ignored.


	Joerg