Re: [PATCH 03/06] iommu/ipmmu-vmsa: Break out utlb control function

[Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>]

Hi Magnus,

On Tuesday 15 December 2015 16:48:42 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com> wrote:
> > --- 0004/drivers/iommu/ipmmu-vmsa.c
> > +++ work/drivers/iommu/ipmmu-vmsa.c     2015-12-15 13:17:40.580513000
> > +0900
> > @@ -279,9 +279,18 @@ static void ipmmu_utlb_enable(struct ipm
> >  static void ipmmu_utlb_disable(struct ipmmu_vmsa_domain *domain,
> >                                unsigned int utlb)
> >  {
> > -       struct ipmmu_vmsa_device *mmu = domain->mmu;
> > +       ipmmu_write(domain->mmu, IMUCTR(utlb), 0);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void ipmmu_utlb_ctrl(struct ipmmu_vmsa_domain *domain,
> > +                           void (*fn)(struct ipmmu_vmsa_domain *,
> > +                                      unsigned int utlb), struct device
> > *dev)
> > +{
> > +       struct ipmmu_vmsa_dev_data *dev_data = get_dev_data(dev);
> > +       unsigned int i;
> > 
> > -       ipmmu_write(mmu, IMUCTR(utlb), 0);
> > +       for (i = 0; i < dev_data->num_utlbs; ++i)
> > +               fn(domain, dev_data->utlbs[i]);
> > 
> >  }
> 
> Unless you have further plans with the "fn" parameter, I would simply pass
> a bool enable/disable flag instead of a function pointer.

I agree with Geert. What's your plan here ?

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart