On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 05:09:34PM +0200, Petr Tesařík wrote: > > > A. Only grouping those fields in their own struct? > > > B. Or move the definition to another include file (cf. MAINTAINERS)? > > > C. Or store a pointer in struct device? > > > > dev->dma_parms is already this, and IIRC still has some very old > > comments somewhere about consolidating the other DMA-related fields in > > there. > > Thank you for the hint! I have actually seen dma_parms, but since it > can be NULL and was initialized from various drivers, it did not occur > to me that NULL simply means not DMA-capable. Yes, dma_parms are still optional. A much better hint is the dma_mask itself, which for historic reasons is implemented in a completely awfull way as a pointer to something stored in the containing struture, which all kinds of platform devices or minor buses doing nasty hacks there.
