From: Al Cooper
> Sent: 28 June 2017 15:56
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 4:47 AM, David Laight <David.Laight@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> temp = bdc_readl(bdc->regs, BDC_BDCSC);
> >> if ((temp & BDC_P64) &&
> >> !dma_set_mask_and_coherent(dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(64))) {
> >> - dev_dbg(bdc->dev, "Using 64-bit address\n");
> >> + dev_dbg(dev, "Using 64-bit address\n");
> >> } else {
> >> - ret = dma_set_mask_and_coherent(&pdev->dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(32));
> >> + ret = dma_set_mask_and_coherent(dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(32));
> >
> > That just wrong...
> > Or was wrong before.
>
> Why is this wrong?
It isn't obvious that &pdev->dev is bdc->dev and hence dev.
David
��.n��������+%������w��{.n����z�{��ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
