From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: joro@8bytes.org (Joerg Roedel) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 13:14:31 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] iommu/dma: Remove bogus dma_supported() implementation In-Reply-To: <143b03c101e727cb156b26a907c8d7e390eb9114.1485971565.git.robin.murphy@arm.com> References: <143b03c101e727cb156b26a907c8d7e390eb9114.1485971565.git.robin.murphy@arm.com> Message-ID: <20170206121431.GB25981@8bytes.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 05:53:04PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote: > Back when this was first written, dma_supported() was somewhat of a > murky mess, with subtly different interpretations being relied upon in > various places. The "does device X support DMA to address range Y?" > uses assuming Y to be physical addresses, which motivated the current > iommu_dma_supported() implementation and are alluded to in the comment > therein, have since been cleaned up, leaving only the far less ambiguous > "can device X drive address bits Y" usage internal to DMA API mask > setting. As such, there is no reason to keep a slightly misleading > callback which does nothing but duplicate the current default behaviour; > we already constrain IOVA allocations to the iommu_domain aperture where > necessary, so let's leave DMA mask business to architecture-specific > code where it belongs. > > Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy Applied, thanks