On Fri, 2018-08-24 at 16:52 +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > Jun Gao correctly identified a problem when freeing a DMA safe buffer [1], many > thanks for that! However, I'd like to not introduce yet another function. So, I > thought about changing the existing API to support the case of freeing a buffer > in case no sync back to the message is needed. Here is what I came up with and > I like the new way better. > > Once this is set in place, the only existing user so far, has been fixed. It > was leaking the bounce buffer on error cases before. Tested on a Renesas Lager > board (R-Car H2). > > Please let me know your thoughts. Jun Gao, does it work for you as well? Dear Wolfram, Thanks for your work. It can work for us. I will modify my patch base on it. Thanks! Jun > > If all goes well, I would like to apply it for -rc2. But I am still open for > comments, of course. > > Thanks and happy hacking, > > Wolfram > > > [1] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/940768/ > > Wolfram Sang (3): > i2c: refactor function to release a DMA safe buffer > i2c: sh_mobile: define start_ch() void as it only returns 0 anyhow > i2c: sh_mobile: fix leak when using DMA bounce buffer > > Documentation/i2c/DMA-considerations | 10 +++++++--- > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-sh_mobile.c | 15 +++++++-------- > drivers/i2c/i2c-core-base.c | 11 ++++++----- > include/linux/i2c.h | 2 +- > 4 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) >
