On Friday 02 January 2015 19:21:28 Felipe Balbi wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 11:12:51AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Monday 29 December 2014 01:52:04 Sneeker Yeh wrote:
> > > > > +static int dwc3_mb86s70_remove_child(struct device *dev, void *unused)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(dev);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + of_device_unregister(pdev);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + return 0;
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static u64 dwc3_mb86s70_dma_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(32);
> > > >
> > > > why ? Use dma_coerce_mask_and_coherent().
> > > >
> > >
> > > okay.
> >
> > Actually that is still wrong: we use dma_coerce_mask_and_coherent() to
> > annotate drivers that have traditionally been forcing their own dma mask
> > by some other means and that need to be changed to something proper (after
> > finding out why they did it in the first place).
> >
> > Since this is about a child device, the correct interface is to use
> > platform_device_register_full().
>
> no, that's wrong. He's essentially fixing the default set by OF core,
> which is always 32-bits anyway, so this can actually be removed. Your
> suggestion would just make it worse.
Ah, so this was for a device that gets probed from DT? Yes, then no
change is needed here at all.
Note that I'm working on a patch set to change the DT initialization to
be a little smarter about the mask. Specifically any device whose parent
has a smaller dma-ranges window than 4GB needs to start out with the
smaller mask, and the dma_set_mask function that is called to allow 64-bit
DMA on a device will check if the bus can actually support it.
Arnd
--
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
