On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 01:44:38PM +0200, Benoit Cousson wrote:
> Hi Felipe,
>
> On 10/26/2012 10:13 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > 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 ?
>
> Well, I wish I could, but honestly I don't have a clue :-(
fair enough, then we will go with Vivek's approach, I'll wait until next
friday before looking into these patches again though.
--
balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
