Re: [PATCH 00/23] iommu: Refactor DMA domain strictness

From: John Garry
Date: Mon Jul 26 2021 - 04:13:40 EST

On 21/07/2021 19:20, Robin Murphy wrote:
Hi all,

First off, yes, this conflicts with just about everything else
currently in-flight. Sorry about that. If it stands up to initial review
then I'll start giving some thought to how to fit everything together
(particularly John's cleanup of strictness defaults, which I'd be
inclined to fold into a v2 of this series).

It seems to me that patch #20 is the only real conflict, and that is just a different form of mine in that passthrough, strict, and lazy are under a single choice, as opposed to passthrough being a separate config (for mine). And on that point, I did assume that we would have a different sysfs file for strict vs lazy in this series, and not a new domain type. But I assume that there is a good reason for that.

Anyway, I'd really like to see my series just merged now.


Anyway, this is my take on promoting the strict vs. non-strict DMA
domain choice to distinct domain types, so that it can fit logically
into the existing sysfs and Kconfig controls. The first 13 patches are
effectively preparatory cleanup to reduce churn in the later changes,
but could be merged in their own right even if the rest is too
contentious. I ended up splitting patches #2-#11 by driver for ease of
review, since some of them are more than just trivial deletions, but
they could readily be squashed (even as far as with #1 and #12 too).

I'm slightly surprised at how straightforward it's turned out, but it
has survived some very basic smoke testing for arm-smmu using dmatest
on my Arm Juno board. Branch here for convenience: