On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:32:55PM +0100, Liviu Dudau wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:26:38PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:02:58PM +0100, Liviu Dudau wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 01:25:37PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > > Please don't move this into here, it's completely inappropriate. Just > > > > because something makes use of this does not mean they only support > > > > 32-bit DMA. Besides, this has nothing to do with whether or not it's > > > > OF-based or not. > > > > > > Understood. My thinking process was that component-based drivers are all > > > OF-enabled (how else do you make use of the framework?) and 32-bit DMA is > > > present in 2 out of 3 drivers that are converted, so it looks to be common > > > enough that adding it to armada would not hurt. It was all done in the name of > > > collecting common code in a single function. > > > > Which is an utterly crap reason. > > > > It's also not appropriate. I'm really not sure why you think that moving > > this here would in any way be appropriate - from my point of view, the > > mere proposal is utterly insane. > > The proposal is to collect similar code present in DRM drivers that act as > component masters in one place in order to reduce code duplication. I want to > add another DRM driver that will make use of the same code and did not see > any reason to copy paste one of the slightly similar versions that are now > peppered in the drivers/drm drivers. I know why people want to set the DMA mask on the "software" component, and that's drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_cma_helper.c, which wants to use drm->dev as the struct device to allocate memory against. That's not really appropriate, and probably ought to get fixed. -- FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net. _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
