On 12/01/17 13:25, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thursday, January 12, 2017 12:16:24 PM CET Will Deacon wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 08:52:51AM +0300, Nikita Yushchenko wrote: >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/fsl-mc/bus/fsl-mc-bus.c b/drivers/staging/fsl-mc/bus/fsl-mc-bus.c >>>>> index 5ac373c..480b644 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/staging/fsl-mc/bus/fsl-mc-bus.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/fsl-mc/bus/fsl-mc-bus.c >>>>> @@ -540,7 +540,7 @@ int fsl_mc_device_add(struct dprc_obj_desc *obj_desc, >>>>> >>>>> /* Objects are coherent, unless 'no shareability' flag set. */ >>>>> if (!(obj_desc->flags & DPRC_OBJ_FLAG_NO_MEM_SHAREABILITY)) >>>>> - arch_setup_dma_ops(&mc_dev->dev, 0, 0, NULL, true); >>>>> + arch_setup_dma_ops(&mc_dev->dev, 0, 0, false, NULL, true); >>>>> >>>>> /* >>>>> * The device-specific probe callback will get invoked by device_add() >>>> >>>> Why are these actually calling arch_setup_dma_ops() here in the first >>>> place? Are these all devices that are DMA masters without an OF node? >>> >>> I don't know, but that's a different topic. This patch just adds >>> argument and sets it to false everywhere but in the location when range >>> should be definitely enforced. >> >> I also wouldn't lose any sleep over a staging driver. > > I think this is in the process of being moved out of staging, and > my question was about the other two as well: The fsl-mc is actually a sort-of-bus-controller probing and configuring its (directly DMA-capable) child devices, so is in fact legitimate here. > drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/dpaa/dpaa_eth.c That one is completely bogus, and should just go away. > drivers/iommu/rockchip-iommu.c That one is part of some ugly trickery involving creating a fake device to represent multiple separate IOMMU devices. The driver could probably be reworked to not need it (the Exynos IOMMU handles a similar situation without such tricks), but it's non-trivial. Robin. > > Arnd >
