[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180322081530.GA29444@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 09:15:30 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Nipun Gupta <nipun.gupta@....com>
Cc: robin.murphy@....com, hch@....de, linux@...linux.org.uk,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, m.szyprowski@...sung.com,
bhelgaas@...gle.com, zajec5@...il.com, andy.gross@...aro.org,
david.brown@...aro.org, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
vinod.koul@...el.com, thierry.reding@...il.com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
frowand.list@...il.com, jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com,
rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com,
johan@...nel.org, msuchanek@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-soc@...r.kernel.org,
dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, bharat.bhushan@....com,
leoyang.li@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dma-mapping: move dma configuration to bus
infrastructure
> +static int amba_dma_configure(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + return dma_common_configure(dev);
> +}
So it turns out we only end with two callers of dma_common_configure
after this series. Based ont hat I'm tempted with the suggestion
from Robin to just have amba call platform_dma_configure, and move
the code from dma_common_configure to platform_dma_configure.
> +int dma_configure(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + if (dev->bus->dma_configure)
> + return dev->bus->dma_configure(dev);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> void dma_deconfigure(struct device *dev)
As grep pointed out this wants a blank line after the function, and while
in nitpicking mode I'd suggest to remove the blank line above the return
statement while at it.
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/host1x/bus.c b/drivers/gpu/host1x/bus.c
> index 88a3558..fa9896d 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/host1x/bus.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/host1x/bus.c
> @@ -314,6 +314,14 @@ static int host1x_device_match(struct device *dev, struct device_driver *drv)
> return strcmp(dev_name(dev), drv->name) == 0;
> }
>
> +static int host1x_dma_configure(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + if (dev->of_node)
> + return of_dma_configure(dev, dev->of_node);
> +
> + return 0;
Same here.
> + */
> +static int pci_dma_configure(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + struct device *bridge;
> + enum dev_dma_attr attr;
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> + bridge = pci_get_host_bridge_device(to_pci_dev(dev));
> +
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) && bridge->parent &&
> + bridge->parent->of_node) {
> + ret = of_dma_configure(dev, bridge->parent->of_node);
> + } else if (has_acpi_companion(bridge)) {
> + attr = acpi_get_dma_attr(to_acpi_device_node(bridge->fwnode));
> + if (attr != DEV_DMA_NOT_SUPPORTED)
> + ret = acpi_dma_configure(dev, attr);
> + }
The attr declaration can be moved into the inner scope here.
> + pci_put_host_bridge_device(bridge);
> +
> + return ret;
Drop the blank line after the return, please.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists