[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5549E834.1040305@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 11:08:52 +0100
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To: Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com>,
"rjw@...ysocki.net" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
"lenb@...nel.org" <lenb@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
"thomas.lendacky@....com" <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
"herbert@...dor.apana.org.au" <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: "al.stone@...aro.org" <al.stone@...aro.org>,
"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
"linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
"leo.duran@....com" <leo.duran@....com>,
"hanjun.guo@...aro.org" <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
"msalter@...hat.com" <msalter@...hat.com>,
"grant.likely@...aro.org" <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org" <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [V2 PATCH 2/5] arm64 : Introduce support for ACPI _CCA object
Hi Suravee,
On 05/05/15 16:12, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> From http://www.uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/ACPI_6.0.pdf,
> section 6.2.17 _CCA states that ARM platforms require ACPI _CCA
> object to be specified for DMA-cabpable devices. This patch introduces
> ACPI_MUST_HAVE_CCA in arm64 Kconfig to specify such requirement.
>
> In this case of missing _CCA, arm64 would assign dummy_dma_ops
> to disable DMA capability of the device.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com>
> ---
[...]
> +static void __dummy_sync_single_for_cpu(struct device *dev,
> + dma_addr_t dev_addr, size_t size,
> + enum dma_data_direction dir)
> +{
> +}
> +
> +static void __dummy_sync_single_for_device(struct device *dev,
> + dma_addr_t dev_addr, size_t size,
> + enum dma_data_direction dir)
> +{
> +}
Minor point, but I don't see the need to have multiple dummy functions
with identical signatures - just have a generic dummy_sync_single and
assign it to both ops.
> +static void __dummy_sync_sg_for_cpu(struct device *dev,
> + struct scatterlist *sgl, int nelems,
> + enum dma_data_direction dir)
> +{
> +}
> +
> +static void __dummy_sync_sg_for_device(struct device *dev,
> + struct scatterlist *sgl, int nelems,
> + enum dma_data_direction dir)
> +{
> +}
Ditto here with dummy_sync_sg.
I wonder if there's any argument for putting the dummy DMA ops somewhere
common, like drivers/base/dma-mapping.c?
Robin.
--
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