RE: [PATCH 4/9] iommu/vt-d: Consolidate dmar state management and force_on logic

[Tian, Kevin]

> From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2026 1:01 PM
> 
> On 6/4/26 13:15, Kevin Tian wrote:
> > +
> > +static inline bool dmar_is_enabled(void)
> > +{
> > +	return dmar_state > 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline bool dmar_is_disabled(void)
> > +{
> > +	return dmar_state < 0;
> > +}
> 
> The helpers above seem to conflict with:
> 
> 	extern int intel_iommu_enabled;
> 
> Can we possibly make the interface consistent?
> 

Can you elaborate the 'conflict' part? 

If dmar_state<0, intel_iommu_enabled will be 0 as no initialization
will happen.

if dmar_state>0, intel_iommu_enabled may be 0 or 1 upon whether
initialization succeeds.

they server different purposes.

or did you mean that the name dmar_is_enabled() may cause 
confusion with intel_iommu_enabled?

I could rename it to dmar_should_enable() and dmar_should_disable()
to differentiate.