On Wednesday 27 April 2016 16:50:19 Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 04:11:17PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wednesday 27 April 2016 14:59:00 Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > >
> > > I would be in favour of a dma_inherit() function as well. We could hack
> > > something up in the arch code (like below) but I would rather prefer an
> > > explicit dma_inherit() call by drivers creating such devices.
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/dma-mapping.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/dma-mapping.h
> > > index ba437f090a74..ea6fb9b0e8fa 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/dma-mapping.h
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/dma-mapping.h
> > > @@ -29,8 +29,11 @@ extern struct dma_map_ops dummy_dma_ops;
> > >
> > > static inline struct dma_map_ops *__generic_dma_ops(struct device *dev)
> > > {
> > > - if (dev && dev->archdata.dma_ops)
> > > - return dev->archdata.dma_ops;
> > > + while (dev) {
> > > + if (dev->archdata.dma_ops)
> > > + return dev->archdata.dma_ops;
> > > + dev = dev->parent;
> > > + }
> >
> > I think this would be a very bad idea: we don't want to have random
> > devices be able to perform DMA just because their parent devices
> > have been set up that way.
>
> I agree, it's a big hack. It would be nice to have a simpler way to do
> this in driver code rather than explicitly calling
> of_dma_configure/arch_setup_dma_ops as per the original patch in this
> thread.
>
I haven't followed the entire discussion, but what's wrong with passing
around a pointer to a 'struct device *hwdev' that represents the physical
device that does the DMA?
Arnd
--
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
