Bjorn / Rafael,
On 10/13/2015 10:52 AM, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
On 09/14/2015 09:34 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
[..]
I think acpi_check_dma_coherency() is better, but only slightly. It
still doesn't give a hint about the *sense* of the return value. I
think it'd be easier to read if there were two functions, e.g.,
I have been going back-and-forth between the current version, and the
two-function-approach in the past. I can definitely go with this route
if you would prefer. Although, if acpi_dma_is_coherent() == 0, it would
be ambiguous whether DMA is not supported or non-coherent DMA is
supported. Then, we would need to call acpi_dma_is_supported() to find
out. So, that's okay with you?
Thinking about this again, I still think having one API (which can tell
whether DMA is supported or not, and if so whether it is coherent or
non-coherent) would be the least confusing and least error prone.
What if we would just have:
enum dev_dma_type acpi_get_dev_dma_type(struct acpi_device *adev);
where:
enum dev_dma_type {
DEV_DMA_NOT_SUPPORTED,
DEV_DMA_NON_COHERENT,
DEV_DMA_COHERENT,
};
This would probably mean that we should modify drivers/base/property.c
to replace:
bool device_dma_is_coherent()
to:
enum dev_dma_type device_get_dma_type()
We used to discuss the enum approach in the past
(https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/8/25/868). But we only considered at the
ACPI level at the time. Actually, this should also reflect in the
property.c.
At this point, only drivers/crypto/ccp/ccp-platform.c and
drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-main.c are calling the
device_dma_is_coherent(). So, it should be easy to change this API.
Please let me know your opinions, or if you have other suggestions.
Thanks again,
Suravee
--
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
