lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 07:00:25 -0500 From: Suravee Suthikulanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com> To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> CC: <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>, <will.deacon@....com>, <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, <al.stone@...aro.org>, <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, Murali Karicheri <m-karicheri2@...com>, <msalter@...hat.com>, <grant.likely@...aro.org>, <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>, <thomas.lendacky@....com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <leo.duran@....com>, <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>, <lenb@...nel.org>, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>, <davem@...emloft.net> Subject: Re: [V4 PATCH 3/6] pci: Generic function for setting up PCI device DMA coherency On 5/20/2015 4:34 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 11:27:54AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Wednesday 20 May 2015 10:24:15 Catalin Marinas wrote: >>> On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 01:59:00AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>> On Friday, May 15, 2015 04:23:11 PM Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote: >>>>> +/** >>>>> + * pci_dma_configure - Setup DMA configuration >>>>> + * @pci_dev: ptr to pci_dev struct of the PCI device >>>>> + * >>>>> + * Function to update PCI devices's DMA configuration using the same >>>>> + * info from the OF node or ACPI node of host bridge's parent (if any). >>>>> + */ >>>>> +static void pci_dma_configure(struct pci_dev *pci_dev) >>>>> +{ >>>>> + struct device *dev = &pci_dev->dev; >>>>> + struct device *bridge = pci_get_host_bridge_device(pci_dev); >>>>> + struct device *host = bridge->parent; >>>>> + struct acpi_device *adev; >>>>> + >>>>> + if (!host) >>>>> + return; >>>>> + >>>>> + if (acpi_disabled) { >>>>> + of_dma_configure(dev, host->of_node); >>>> >>>> I'd rather do >>>> >>>> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) && host->of_node) { >>>> of_dma_configure(dev, host->of_node); >>> >>> Nitpick: do we need the CONFIG_OF check? If disabled, I don't think >>> anyone would set host->of_node. >> >> If of_dma_configure() is defined in a file that is built conditionally >> based on CONFIG_OF, you need it. > > We have a dummy of_dma_configure() already when !CONFIG_OF, otherwise > we would need #ifndef here. I already replied, I think for other > architectures we need this check to avoid a useless host->of_node test. > It seems that there are several places that have similar check. Would it be good to convert this into a macro? Something like: #define OF_NODE_ENABLED(dev) (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) && dev->of_node) Thanks all for the review feedback. Suravee -- 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