Re: [PATCH 5/5] dma-direct: always allow dma mask <= physiscal memory size

[Robin Murphy]

[ oops, I should have looked at the replies first, now I see Ben already 
had the same thing to say about #3... ]

On 27/09/18 14:49, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 11:50:14AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > -	 * to be able to satisfy them - either by not supporting more physical
> > > -	 * memory, or by providing a ZONE_DMA32.  If neither is the case, the
> > > -	 * architecture needs to use an IOMMU instead of the direct mapping.
> > > -	 */
> > > -	if (mask < phys_to_dma(dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(32)))
> > > +	u64 min_mask;
> > > +
> > > +	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ZONE_DMA))
> > > +		min_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(ARCH_ZONE_DMA_BITS);
> > > +	else
> > > +		min_mask = min_t(u64, DMA_BIT_MASK(32),
> > > +				 (max_pfn - 1) << PAGE_SHIFT);
> > > +
> > > +	if (mask >= phys_to_dma(dev, min_mask))
> > >   		return 0;
> >
> > nitpick ... to be completely "correct", I would have written
> >
> > 	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ZONE_DMA))
> > 		min_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(ARCH_ZONE_DMA_BITS);
> > 	else
> > 		min_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(32);
> >
> > 	min_mask = min_t(u64, min_mask,	(max_pfn - 1) << PAGE_SHIFT);
> >
> > In "theory" it's also ok to have a mask < ZONE_DMA_BITS as long as it's
> > big enough to fit all memory :-)
>
> Yeah, we could do that.

FWIW I like it even if just for looking slightly more readable. With 
that fixup,

Reviewed-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@xxxxxxx>