[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180710180433.GB26285@lst.de>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 20:04:33 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
Cc: hch@....de, m.szyprowski@...sung.com,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
lorenzo.pieralisi@....com, hanjun.guo@...aro.org,
sudeep.holla@....com, robh+dt@...nel.org, frowand.list@...il.com,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, joro@...tes.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] dma-mapping: Generalise dma_32bit_limit flag
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 06:17:16PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/dma/direct.c b/kernel/dma/direct.c
> index 8be8106270c2..95e185347e34 100644
> --- a/kernel/dma/direct.c
> +++ b/kernel/dma/direct.c
> @@ -183,7 +183,7 @@ int dma_direct_supported(struct device *dev, u64 mask)
> * Various PCI/PCIe bridges have broken support for > 32bit DMA even
> * if the device itself might support it.
> */
> - if (dev->dma_32bit_limit && mask > DMA_BIT_MASK(32))
> + if (dev->bus_dma_mask && mask > dev->bus_dma_mask)
> return 0;
The comment above this check needs an updated (or just be removed).
Also we still have a few architectures not using dma-direct. I guess
most were doing fine without such limits anyway, but at least arm
will probably need an equivalent check.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists