On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 03:00:36PM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote: > On 14/03/16 05:15, Alexandre Courbot wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 07/03/16 04:07, Alexandre Courbot wrote: > >>> DMA mask will already be set by sdhci_set_dma_mask(), which > >>> is equivalent to the removed code since pci_set_dma_mask() > >>> expands to its DMA-API counterpart. > >>> > >>> There should also be no reason to set the DMA mask after probe. > >> > >> Let's run that by the PCI mailing list just to be sure. The patches for > >> reference: > >> > >> http://marc.info/?l=linux-mmc&m=145731654328126&w=2 > >> http://marc.info/?l=linux-mmc&m=145731654328128&w=2 > >> > >> change the sdhci-pci driver to set the DMA mask once during probe instead of > >> every time during resume. Is there any reason a PCI device driver might > >> need to set the DMA mask every time during resume? > > > > Not seeing much reaction for this patchset. PCI being the only > > possible point of contention, can we maybe roll it into -next and see > > what happens? > > +Rafael > > Rafael, can you offer any thoughts on this: > > PCI drivers that want to use DMA might call pci_set_master() in the pm > resume callback. Some drivers (like sdhci-pci) also, presumably out of > convenience, set the DMA mask at the same time. The question is: is it OK > instead to set the DMA mask just once during probe, or is there some other > reason the DMA mask needs to be set every time during resume? I don't see a reason why the DMA mask would need to be set during resume. Bjorn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
