[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200422170403.GB28781@lst.de>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 19:04:03 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>, Haibo Chen <haibo.chen@....com>,
Ludovic Barre <ludovic.barre@...com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v2 2/2] amba: Initialize dma_parms for amba
devices
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 12:10:13PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> It's currently the amba driver's responsibility to initialize the pointer,
> dma_parms, for its corresponding struct device. The benefit with this
> approach allows us to avoid the initialization and to not waste memory for
> the struct device_dma_parameters, as this can be decided on a case by case
> basis.
>
> However, it has turned out that this approach is not very practical. Not
> only does it lead to open coding, but also to real errors. In principle
> callers of dma_set_max_seg_size() doesn't check the error code, but just
> assumes it succeeds.
>
> For these reasons, let's do the initialization from the common amba bus at
> the device registration point. This also follows the way the PCI devices
> are being managed, see pci_device_add().
Looks good,
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists