[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <12718317.Y05azLtl8v@wuerfel>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 21:45:40 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Boris BREZILLON <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
Cc: Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: inherit coherent_dma_mask from parent device
On Monday 22 September 2014 21:37:55 Boris BREZILLON wrote:
> dma_mask and dma_parms are already inherited from the parent device but
> dma_coherent_mask was left uninitialized (set to zero thanks to kzalloc).
> Set sub-device coherent_dma_mask to its parent value to simplify
> sub-drivers making use of dma coherent helper functions (those drivers
> currently have to explicitly set the dma coherent mask using
> dma_set_coherent_mask function).
>
> Signed-off-by: Boris BREZILLON <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
> ---
>
> Hi,
>
> This patch is follow-up of a discussion we had on a KMS driver thread [1].
> This patch is only copying the parent device coherent_dma_mask to avoid
> calling specific dma_set_coherent_mask in case the coherent mask is the
> default one.
>
> I'm a bit surprised this hasn't been done earlier while other dma fields
> (mask and parms) are already inherited from the parent device, so please
> tell me if there already was an attempt to do the same, and if so, what
> was the reson for rejecting it :-).
>
>
Seems reasonable to me. It's not clear whether we should always inherit
the dma_mask, but I see no point in copying just dma_mask but not
coherent_dma_mask.
Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists