Re: [PATCH] iommu/io-pgtable-arm: dynamically allocate selftest device struct

From: Robin Murphy
Date: Fri Apr 11 2025 - 12:30:23 EST


On 11/04/2025 2:44 pm, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Fri, Apr 11, 2025, at 15:19, Robin Murphy wrote:
On 11/04/2025 1:54 pm, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
@@ -1433,15 +1434,17 @@ static int __init arm_lpae_do_selftests(void)
};
int i, j, k, pass = 0, fail = 0;
- struct device dev;

Could we not simply make this static? Per the comment it's only here to
serve a NUMA node lookup buried deep in the pagetable allocator (TBH my
first thought was to just put an int on the stack and contrive a pointer
as the inverse of dev_to_node(), but I decided that would probably be
too contentious...)

A static device would work here, but that has other (small)
downsides:

- static devices are discouraged for any real purpose because
of the problematic lifetime rules. I think Greg would still
want to eliminate these entirely.

- there is slightly more memory usage: the __init function
gets eliminated after boot, while a static allocation says
around. It could perhaps be made __initdata.

- If we ever need anything beyond the NUMA node from it, the
dynamic allocation is probably close enough to make that
work.

+ struct platform_device *pdev;
struct io_pgtable_cfg cfg = {
.tlb = &dummy_tlb_ops,
.coherent_walk = true,
- .iommu_dev = &dev,
};
- /* __arm_lpae_alloc_pages() merely needs dev_to_node() to work */
- set_dev_node(&dev, NUMA_NO_NODE);
+ pdev = platform_device_alloc("io-pgtable-test", 0);

Otherwise, this would seem to be another perfect case for the new
faux_device.

Good point, that is clearly better than platform_device in this
case. Shall I send a new version with that?

Sure, I'm happy to consciously err on the side of caution and robustness, just making sure :)

Thanks,
Robin.