Hi Arnd, Thanks, with regards, Ram On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 12:25 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Monday 12 January 2015 14:40:09 Rameshwar Sahu wrote: >> > + >> > + dma_set_mask_and_coherent(&pdev->dev, >> > + (sizeof(dma_addr_t) == sizeof(u64)) ? >> > + DMA_BIT_MASK(64) : DMA_BIT_MASK(32)); >> > + >> > > I commented on this on v1 already: always set the device specific mask here, > it's independent of the CPU architecture, but do check the return value. > Got it, I will set first 64 bit dma mask here due to device support 64 bit address dma operations, and fall down to 32 - bit in case failure with 64 bit. > Also add the correct dma-ranges property in the parent, or else this will > fail in the future once we add proper checks to dma_set_mask. I see arch/arm64 kernel doesn't use dma range value parsed from dma-range property currently, I will check it more. It doesn't use dma_pfn_offset value calculated by the dma-ranges in dma mapping API. dma-ranges value should test properly before adding. Is there any use to add this dma-ranges properly if arch code doesn't support ?? > > Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dmaengine" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
