On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 09:30:47 +0100,
Jiri Slaby wrote:
>
> On 03/12/2017, 06:20 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 04:28:53PM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> >> On 03/08/2017, 11:27 AM, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>> From 15c75b09f8d190f89ab4db463b87d411ca349dfe Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >>> From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx>
> >>> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 17:16:48 +0100
> >>> Subject: ALSA: ctxfi: Fallback DMA mask to 32bit
> >>>
> >>> From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>> commit 15c75b09f8d190f89ab4db463b87d411ca349dfe upstream.
> >>>
> >>> Currently ctxfi driver tries to set only the 64bit DMA mask on 64bit
> >>> architectures, and bails out if it fails. This causes a problem on
> >>> some platforms since the 64bit DMA isn't always guaranteed. We should
> >>> fall back to the default 32bit DMA when 64bit DMA fails.
> >>>
> >>> Fixes: 6d74b86d3c0f ("ALSA: ctxfi - Allow 64bit DMA")
> >>> Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ...
> >>> @@ -1904,19 +1898,18 @@ static int hw_card_start(struct hw *hw)
> >>> {
> >>> int err;
> >>> struct pci_dev *pci = hw->pci;
> >>> + const unsigned int dma_bits = BITS_PER_LONG;
> >>>
> >>> err = pci_enable_device(pci);
> >>> if (err < 0)
> >>> return err;
> >>>
> >>> /* Set DMA transfer mask */
> >>> - if (dma_set_mask(&pci->dev, CT_XFI_DMA_MASK) < 0 ||
> >>> - dma_set_coherent_mask(&pci->dev, CT_XFI_DMA_MASK) < 0) {
> >>> - dev_err(hw->card->dev,
> >>> - "architecture does not support PCI busmaster DMA with mask 0x%llx\n",
> >>> - CT_XFI_DMA_MASK);
> >>> - err = -ENXIO;
> >>> - goto error1;
> >>> + if (dma_set_mask(&pci->dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(dma_bits))) {
> >>
> >> I believe the condition is inverted here.
> >>
> >>> + dma_set_coherent_mask(&pci->dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(dma_bits));
> >>> + } else {
> >>> + dma_set_mask(&pci->dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(32));
> >>> + dma_set_coherent_mask(&pci->dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(32));
> >
> > As this matches what is in Linus's tree, that means I didn't mess up the
> > backport :)
>
> Sure, I didn't mean to point out your failure, rather Takashi wrote the
> check wrong :).
Sorry for the late response, as I've been on vacation over two weeks.
And another sorry about the patch -- it's simply an incorrect cut &
paste & modify sequence.
I'll queue up the correction patch for the next 4.11-rc soon later.
thanks,
Takashi