On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 04:55:25PM +0000, Timur Tabi wrote: > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Will Deacon <[email protected]> wrote: > > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c > > index 0ae4dd39197f..6fe7922ecc1d 100644 > > --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c > > +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c > > @@ -2004,8 +2004,10 @@ static int __init arm_smmu_init(void) > > if (!iommu_present(&platform_bus_type)) > > bus_set_iommu(&platform_bus_type, &arm_smmu_ops); > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_AMBA > > if (!iommu_present(&amba_bustype)) > > bus_set_iommu(&amba_bustype, &arm_smmu_ops); > > +#endif > > So I admit I don't know much about the ARM kernel (yet), but doesn't > this break multi-arch? That is, we can't support one binary that runs > on a processor with AMBA and one without?
Huh? It's harmless to enable CONFIG_ARM_AMBA, even if you don't have any AMBA devices in your SoC, it just makes your binary a bit bigger because you're compiling in code that you don't need. Instead, you might elect to set CONFIG_ARM_AMBA=n, at which point the arm-smmu driver will fail to build without this patch. Will _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
