On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 10:53:59PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, May 07, 2015 07:37:12 PM Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
> > index ab2cbb5..7822149 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
> > @@ -54,6 +54,12 @@ config ACPI_GENERIC_GSI
> > config ACPI_SYSTEM_POWER_STATES_SUPPORT
> > bool
> >
> > +config ACPI_CCA_REQUIRED
> > + bool
> > +
> > +config ARM64_SUPPORT_ACPI_CCA_ZERO
>
> Hmm. I guess the Arnd's idea what to simply use CONFIG_ARM64 directly instead
> of adding this new option.
I agree.
> > +static inline bool acpi_dma_is_supported(struct acpi_device *adev)
> > +{
> > + /**
> > + * Currently, we mainly support _CCA=1 (i.e. is_coherent=1)
> > + * This should be equivalent to specifyig dma-coherent for
> > + * a device in OF.
> > + *
> > + * For the case when _CCA=0 (i.e. is_coherent=0 && cca_seen=1),
> > + * we would rely on arch-specific cache maintenance for
> > + * non-coherence DMA operations if architecture specifies
> > + * _XXX_SUPPORT_CCA_ZERO. Otherwise, we do not support
> > + * DMA on this device and fallback to arch-specific default
> > + * handling.
> > + *
> > + * For the case when _CCA is missing (i.e. cca_seen=0) but
> > + * platform specifies ACPI_CCA_REQUIRED, we do not support DMA,
> > + * and fallback to arch-specific default handling.
> > + */
> > + return adev && (adev->flags.is_coherent ||
> > + (adev->flags.cca_seen &&
> > + IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64_SUPPORT_ACPI_CCA_ZERO)));
>
> So what exactly would be wrong with using IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64) here?
I'm not sure I follow why we need to check for ARM64 here at all. Can we
not just have something like:
return adev && (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI_CCA_REQUIRED) ||
adev->flags.cca_seen)
--
Catalin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
