Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] of: configure the platform device dma parameters

From: Santosh Shilimkar
Date: Wed May 07 2014 - 09:25:00 EST


On Tuesday 06 May 2014 04:44 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> On Tuesday 06 May 2014 05:40 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Monday 05 May 2014 17:47:32 Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>>
>>> + dev->coherent_dma_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(32);
>>> + if (!dev->dma_mask)
>>> + dev->dma_mask = &dev->coherent_dma_mask;
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * if dma-ranges property doesn't exist - just return else
>>> + * setup the dma offset
>>> + */
>>> + ret = of_dma_get_range(dev->of_node, &dma_addr, &paddr, &size);
>>> + if (ret < 0) {
>>> + dev_dbg(dev, "no dma range information to setup\n");
>>> + return;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + /* DMA ranges found. Calculate and set dma_pfn_offset */
>>> + dev->dma_pfn_offset = PFN_DOWN(paddr - dma_addr);
>>> + dev_dbg(dev, "dma_pfn_offset(%#08lx)\n", dev->dma_pfn_offset);
>>> +}
>>
>> I think there should at least be a comment about why we are computing
>> the correct DMA mask here and then ignore that and just use DMA_BIT_MASK(32)
>> instead. I understand that Russell and Rob prefer it that way and I'm not
>> going to argue, but I find it counterintuitive and I think it deserves
>> an explanation in the source code for anybody who is trying to figure
>> out how things fit together.
>>
> In this patch, the dma_mask related code is just moved. We are not calculating
> dma_mask either. I was looking for the history of how DMA_BIT_MASK(32)
> landed up but couldn't trace it down apart from the fact that the code was
> carried from powerPC. May be Rob knows.
>
> How about below comment ? I didn't delibratly added point about bus
> intercepting drivers dma_set_*mask() call etc.
>
> /*
> * Set default dma-mask to 32 bit. Drivers are expected to setup
> * the correct supported dma_mask.
> */
> + dev->coherent_dma_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(32);
> + if (!dev->dma_mask)
> + dev->dma_mask = &dev->coherent_dma_mask;
>
Updated patch below for records.