From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: joro@8bytes.org (Joerg Roedel) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 18:29:13 +0100 Subject: [GIT PULL] iommu/arm-smmu: Fixes for 4.9 In-Reply-To: References: <20161028160148.GD1076@arm.com> <20161103153303.GA837@8bytes.org> <20161103160006.GS22791@arm.com> <20161103161407.GR3541@8bytes.org> <0dbf2665-4292-d49a-b9e7-688bcdf29c6e@arm.com> <20161103162943.GS3541@8bytes.org> Message-ID: <20161103172913.GT3541@8bytes.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 04:57:40PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote: > But if it is someone else's ops, then all that means is that the SMMU > driver isn't going to get notified about devices on that bus, or get > called with them later, so I still don't see where the problem is. If > there are devices on that bus which the SMMU *is* supposed to be > managing, then that system can't be supported with the current API anyway. If another IOMMU is already probed and set its iommu_ops, than there is no point in probing the smmu anyway, no? The probe function should return the failed probe in that case and not proceed silently. Joerg