Hi,
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:37:33AM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 03:36:43PM +0530, kishon wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Tuesday 16 October 2012 03:23 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> >> >On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 02:15:56PM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
> >> >>This patch adds support to parse probe data for
> >> >>dwc3-exynos driver using device tree.
> >> >>
> >> >>Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <gautam.vivek@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >>---
> >> >> drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-exynos.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> >> >> 1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >> >>
> >> >>diff --git a/drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-exynos.c b/drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-exynos.c
> >> >>index ca65978..d11ef49 100644
> >> >>--- a/drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-exynos.c
> >> >>+++ b/drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-exynos.c
> >> >>@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
> >> >> #include <linux/clk.h>
> >> >> #include <linux/usb/otg.h>
> >> >> #include <linux/usb/nop-usb-xceiv.h>
> >> >>+#include <linux/of.h>
> >> >>
> >> >> #include "core.h"
> >> >>
> >> >>@@ -87,6 +88,8 @@ err1:
> >> >> return ret;
> >> >> }
> >> >>
> >> >>+static u64 dwc3_exynos_dma_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(32);
> >> >>+
> >> >> static int __devinit dwc3_exynos_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >> >> {
> >> >> struct dwc3_exynos_data *pdata = pdev->dev.platform_data;
> >> >>@@ -103,6 +106,14 @@ static int __devinit dwc3_exynos_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >> >> goto err0;
> >> >> }
> >> >>
> >> >>+ /*
> >> >>+ * Right now device-tree probed devices don't get dma_mask set.
> >> >>+ * Since shared usb code relies on it, set it here for now.
> >> >>+ * Once we move to full device tree support this will vanish off.
> >> >>+ */
> >> >>+ if (!pdev->dev.dma_mask)
> >> >>+ pdev->dev.dma_mask = &dwc3_exynos_dma_mask;
> >> >
> >> >says who ?
> >> >
> >> >$ git grep -e dma_mask drivers/of/
> >> >drivers/of/platform.c: dev->dev.dma_mask = &dev->archdata.dma_mask;
> >> >drivers/of/platform.c: dev->archdata.dma_mask = 0xffffffffUL;
> >> >drivers/of/platform.c: dev->dev.coherent_dma_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(32);
> >> >drivers/of/platform.c: dev->dev.coherent_dma_mask = ~0;
> >> >drivers/of/platform.c: dev->dma_mask = ~0;
> >> >
> >> >-ECONFUSED
> >>
> >> dma_mask is set under some ifdef except for "dev->dma_mask = ~0;".
> >> However I agree with you for coherent_dma_mask case.
> >
> > indeed. Should we try to patch that instead ?
> >
> > Rob, should we set dma_mask at the driver or do you have a nicer way to
> > handle it ??
> >
> Can i have suggestions here please ? :)
Benoit, can you answer here since nobody else does ?
--
balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
