On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Saturday 08 August 2015 13:31:02 Duc Dang wrote:
> > >
> > > If we know that pdev->dev.dma_mask will always be initialised at this
> > > point, then the above change is fine. If not, it's introducing a
> > > regression - dma_set_mask_and_coherent() will fail if pdev->dev.dma_mask
> > > is NULL (depending on the architectures implementation of dma_set_mask()).
> > >
> > > Prefixing the above change with the two lines I mention above would
> > > ensure equivalent behaviour. Even if we do want to get rid of this,
> > > I'd advise to do it as a separate patch after this change, which can
> > > be independently reverted if there's problems with its removal.
> > >
> > Hi Russell,
> >
> > I will add the 2 lines you mentioned back to next version of the
> > patch. It is safer to do it that way as I do not see
> > pdev->dev.dma_mask gets initialized before the call
> > dma_set_mask_and_coherent inside this xhci_plat.c file.
>
> It would be good to add a WARN_ON() to the case where dma_mask
> is a NULL pointer at the least. That way, we will at least
> find out if there are some broken platforms that do not correctly
> initialize the mask pointer.
Hi Arnd,
So the check will look like this, please let me know what do you think:
if (!pdev->dev.dma_mask) {
WARN_ON(1);
/* Initialize dma_mask if the broken platform code has
not done so */
pdev->dev.dma_mask = &pdev->dev.coherent_dma_mask;
}
>
> Arnd
--
Regards,
Duc Dang.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
