On 03/05/2013 04:15 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 05 March 2013 03:43:52 Rob Herring wrote: >> On 03/05/2013 03:25 AM, Padmavathi Venna wrote: >>> This patch returns error when 'dma-cells' property not found >>> in the corresponding device node. With out this change there >>> is a crash in the generic dma incompatible platforms. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Padmavathi Venna <padma.v@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> NAK. >> >> #dma-cells should be optional. It is not needed for platforms supporting >> memory to memory transfers only and should therefore be optional. You >> cannot assume the dtb can be updated and kernel changes need to work >> with old dtbs. I've submitted patches to address this and fix the crash: >> >> https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/devicetree-discuss/2013-February/028769.html > > Why would you call of_dma_controller_register() for a dma > engine that does not support slave channels, when that is the > only purpose of that interface? Well maybe then that function should be allowed to fail without erroring out. I just fixed it a the line that failed. Doing be32_to_cpup directly on a function return that can be NULL is not correct either. > Note that the binding defines #dma-cells as required, and it > does not make any sense otherwise. The 2nd patch I submitted changes that. It does not make sense to require it if you have no requests and hence will never have a phandle reference in a slave device. The simple fact is that the pl330 had an existing binding that worked for the memory to memory only case and kernel changes broke this. Kernel changes should not break existing device-trees. Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |