On 09/10/2015 11:45 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 10 September 2015 11:37:38 Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
>> +static u64 da8xx_edma0_dmamask = DMA_BIT_MASK(32);
>> +
>> static struct platform_device da8xx_edma0_device = {
>> .name = "edma",
>> .id = 0,
>> .dev = {
>> .platform_data = &da8xx_edma0_pdata,
>> + .dma_mask = &da8xx_edma0_dmamask,
>> + .coherent_dma_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(32),
>> },
>> .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(da8xx_edma0_resources),
>> .resource = da8xx_edma0_resources,
>> };
>
> While this is technically correct for all I can tell, could you
> convert it to use __initconst platform_device_info and
> platform_device_register_full() instead?
Yes, I can do that for the eDMAs. I was also thought about this, but looking
around the mach-davinci, I thought to stick with this mode.
> statically declaring platform_devices has been frowned upon for a long
> time (even though a lot of arm platforms still do it), and statically
> declaring the dma mask seems worse to me (and yes, I realize we also
> do that elsewhere).
Will be part of v2.
--
Péter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
