On Mon, 2013-03-25 at 22:23 +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 25 March 2013, Alan Stern wrote:
> > >
> > > + if (!dev->dev.platform_data) {
> > > + dev->dev.platform_data = &ehci_platform_defaults;
> > > + dev->dev.dma_mask = &dev->dev.coherent_dma_mask;
> > > + dev->dev.coherent_dma_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(32);
> >
> > In view of Felipe's comment, shouldn't these last two lines be
> > controlled by dev->dev.of_node != NULL instead?
>
> We could do that, or alternatively like this
>
> if (!dev->dev.platform_data) {
> dev->dev.platform_data = &ehci_platform_defaults;
> if (!dev->dev.dma_mask)
> dev->dev.dma_mask = &dev->dev.coherent_dma_mask;
> if (!dev->dev.coherent_dma_mask)
> dev->dev.coherent_dma_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(32);
>
> which would have the additional advantage that platforms can then
> call platform_device_register_resndata() to create the device
> and get a reasonable default dma mask (EHCI should always have
> 32 bit DMA, unless the platform is really screwed), rather than
> statically declaring platform devices.
>
> Arnd
>
Should I be expecting a v2 or should I just test this patch as is?
Regards
Tony P
--
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
