[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160613121105.GA12857@sudip-tp>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 13:11:05 +0100
From: Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Simran Rai <ssimran@...adcom.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma: remove bad_dma_ops to fix build fail
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 12:59:11PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:51:08AM +0100, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:29:34AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > Right, we've got a couple of obscure architectures with no DMA support
> > > which are leading to a constant stream of patches like this that are
> > > being triggered by compile coverage stuff. In situations like this we
> > > very often provide stubs rather than having to handle this in lots of
> > > different places in the code.
>
> > Ok, I will do that. But I am seeing arch/m32r/include/asm/m32102.h is
> > defining the DMA Controller registers and also a MAX_DMA_ADDRESS is
> > defined in dma.h. Doesn't that mean that this arch is capable of DMA?
>
> Quite possibly, but they don't seem to implement the standard interfaces
> for generic code (this sort of thing is quite common for the less widely
> used architectures sadly).
If only I had a board to play with the DMA code. :(
I will go for the stub like you said.
Regards
Sudip
Powered by blists - more mailing lists