Hi Bjorn,
On 8/25/2015 3:14 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Suravee Suthikulpanit
<Suravee.Suthikulpanit@xxxxxxx> wrote:
commit 84cfb2213cd400fef227ec0d7829ec4e12895da9
Author: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu Aug 13 19:49:52 2015 -0500
ACPI / scan: Rename acpi_check_dma() to acpi_dma_is_coherent()
The name "acpi_check_dma()" doesn't give any much indication about
what
exactly it checks. The function also returns information both as a
normal
return value and as the "bool *coherent" return parameter. But
"*coherent"
doesn't actually give any extra information: it is unchanged when
returning
false and set to true when returning true.
Rename acpi_check_dma() to acpi_dma_is_coherent() so the callers
read more
naturally. Drop the return parameter and just use the function
return
value.
Signed-off-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx>
This was because, at one point, we wanted to be able to differentiate
between the case _CCA=0 and missing _CCA in ARM64, where we would support
DMA (using arch-specific cache maintenance) if _CCA=0, and disable DMA when
missing _CCA on ARM64.
It seems like the logic is now required (please see
https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg62735.html). So,
we would need the true/false return, and the coherent variable to be able to
differentiate between the two cases.
Please let me know what you think.
It's hard for me to comment without seeing the actual patches. I
think returning two values (_CCA-seen and coherent) is a confusing
interface.
Ok. Let me simplify this and send out V2.
Thanks,
Suravee
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
