[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141121103213.GB19783@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 10:32:14 +0000
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: For the problem when using swiotlb
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 09:35:10AM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> @@ -88,11 +89,24 @@ static inline int dma_set_mask(struct device *dev, u64 mask)
> {
> if (!dev->dma_mask || !dma_supported(dev, mask))
> return -EIO;
> + /* if asking for bigger dma mask, limit it to the bus dma ranges */
> + if (mask > *dev->dma_mask)
> + mask &= of_dma_get_range_mask(dev);
> *dev->dma_mask = mask;
>
> return 0;
> }
I wonder whether mask &= of_dma_get_range_mask(dev) limiting should
actually be done before actually checking dma_supported(). That's
because a device may try to set a 64-bit mask but being connected to a
more limiting bus, we should check the dma_supported() on the resulting
mask.
--
Catalin
--
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