On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thursday 27 February 2014 16:17:50 Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/devtree.c b/arch/arm/kernel/devtree.c
>> index f751714..926b5dd 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/devtree.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/devtree.c
>> @@ -235,3 +238,61 @@ const struct machine_desc * __init setup_machine_fdt(unsigned int dt_phys)
>>
>> return mdesc;
>> }
>> +
>> +void arm_dt_dma_configure(struct device *dev)
>> +{
>> + dma_addr_t dma_addr;
>> + phys_addr_t paddr, size;
>> + dma_addr_t dma_mask;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * if dma-ranges property doesn't exist - use 32 bits DMA mask
>> + * by default and don't set skip archdata.dma_pfn_offset
>> + */
>> + ret = of_dma_get_range(dev->of_node, &dma_addr, &paddr, &size);
>> + if (ret == -ENODEV) {
>> + dev->coherent_dma_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(32);
>> + if (!dev->dma_mask)
>> + dev->dma_mask = &dev->coherent_dma_mask;
>> + return;
>> + }
>
> I think this is a reasonable default, but I also want Russell's
> opinion on this, since I suspect he will argue that we shouldn't
> default to setting a DMA mask for devices that are not DMA capable.
of_platform_device_create_pdata() in drivers/of/platform.c
does the same assumption since ages.
> Maybe someone has an idea how we can detect all three important cases:
>
> a) A device is marked as DMA capable using a dma-ranges property
> b) A device is known not to be DMA capable
> c) we don't have any dma-ranges properties in an old dtb file
> but still want 32 bit masks by default.
The exact same solution would apply to the of core right?
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
