From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: santosh.shilimkar@ti.com (Santosh Shilimkar)
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 11:46:50 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: keystone: add bus notifier to set dma_pfn_offset
 for pci devices
In-Reply-To: <20141010154258.GN5182@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
References: <1412954137-4567-1-git-send-email-m-karicheri2@ti.com>
 <5437FB3F.4010906@ti.com> <20141010154258.GN5182@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Message-ID: <5437FF6A.9030203@ti.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org



On 10/10/14 11:42 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:29:03AM -0400, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/10/14 11:15 AM, Murali Karicheri wrote:
>>> When PCI device driver such as that for e1000e tries to set dma mask
>>> using dma_set_mask_and_coherent(), it fails because the dma_pfn_offset
>>> is incorrect on a Keystone SoC. This patch fix this by adding a bus
>>> notifier to set this correctly for PCI devices.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Murali Karicheri <m-karicheri2@ti.com>
>>> ---
>> Looks good. I will pick this up after the merge window.
>
> No it doesn't, this patch is crap.  Really.  Let's look again at what the
> patch is doing:
>
>          if (platform_nb.notifier_call)
>                  bus_register_notifier(&platform_bus_type, &platform_nb);
> +       if (platform_nb.notifier_call)
> +               bus_register_notifier(&pci_bus_type, &platform_nb);
>
> Notice that both calls are using the same platform_nb structure, which is:
>
> static struct notifier_block platform_nb;
>
> and in turn this is:
>
> struct notifier_block {
>          notifier_fn_t notifier_call;
>          struct notifier_block __rcu *next;
>          int priority;
> };
>
> Notice that "next" pointer - these blocks are used as a single-linked list.
> So, this block gets registered for the platform bus, and is inserted into
> that bus notifier chain.  That means "next" may be set to a non-NULL
> next notifier block.
>
> Then it gets registered against the PCI bus, which *will* overwrite the
> next pointer in platform_nb.
>
Err.... You are dead right. I missed completely that it is using the
same notifier block. Sorry for oversight and thanks for spotting it.

Regards,
Santosh