On 11/14/2014 07:23 AM, Alan Stern wrote: > On Fri, 14 Nov 2014, Andreas Herrmann wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 08:44:17PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote: >>> 2014-11-13 13:36 GMT-08:00 Andreas Herrmann >>> <andreas.herrmann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >>>> ehci-octeon driver used a 64-bit dma_mask. With removal of ehci-octeon >>>> and usage of ehci-platform ehci dma_mask is now limited to 32 bits >>>> (coerced in ehci_platform_probe). >>>> >>>> Provide a flag in ehci platform data to allow use of 64 bits for >>>> dma_mask. >>> >>> Why not just allow enforcing an arbitrary DMA mask? >> >> I thought about that but as it's currently just 32 or 64 bits >> a flag is sufficient. (At the moment I am not aware that >> other ehci-platform devices would require something else.) >> >> I'll change the flag to a mask if desired. >> Alan, what's your opinion about this? > > I'm not aware of any devices that need a different DMA mask either. > > Florian, do you have any reason for thinking such a thing might come > along? Like Andreas, I don't mind making it more general if there's a > good reason to do so. I don't have a specific platform I am thinking about, just that while we are there allowing a dma_mask to be specified, I would rather pass an u64 that covers all possible cases. Thanks! -- Florian
