Hi,
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 11:12:51AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 29 December 2014 01:52:04 Sneeker Yeh wrote:
> > > > +static int dwc3_mb86s70_remove_child(struct device *dev, void *unused)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(dev);
> > > > +
> > > > + of_device_unregister(pdev);
> > > > +
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static u64 dwc3_mb86s70_dma_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(32);
> > >
> > > why ? Use dma_coerce_mask_and_coherent().
> > >
> >
> > okay.
>
> Actually that is still wrong: we use dma_coerce_mask_and_coherent() to
> annotate drivers that have traditionally been forcing their own dma mask
> by some other means and that need to be changed to something proper (after
> finding out why they did it in the first place).
>
> Since this is about a child device, the correct interface is to use
> platform_device_register_full().
no, that's wrong. He's essentially fixing the default set by OF core,
which is always 32-bits anyway, so this can actually be removed. Your
suggestion would just make it worse.
--
balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
