struct AcpiIortSmmu3 {
ACPI_IORT_NODE_HEADER_DEF
uint64_t base_address;
@@ -639,6 +645,8 @@ struct AcpiIortSmmu3 {
uint32_t pri_gsiv;
uint32_t gerr_gsiv;
uint32_t sync_gsiv;
+ uint32_t pxm;
So if we use this field ,we need to set the flags with
ACPI_IORT_SMMU_V3_PXM_VALID
+ uint32_t id_mapping_index;
And if we use this field, it needs to set the revision to at least 1.
But is it harmful to add those fields in the struct as this patch does?
- in our case ACPI_IORT_SMMU_V3_PXM_VALID flag is not set so the field
value is ignored according to the spec and arm_smmu_v3_set_proximity()
will not do anything.
- SMMU control interrupts are all GSIV based so spec says that deviceID
index is ignored.
So eventually the fact the struct size is changing over the revisions
does not look a problem because the node length is part of the struct
and the offset to the ID array also is part of the structure.
So I could have left the structure as before (because we don't use the
functionalities associated to those fields). But on the other hand it's
good to upgrade the struct according to Rev D now.
So I think the patch is correct, isn't?