From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: peter.ujfalusi@ti.com (Peter Ujfalusi)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:13:14 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 09/21] ARM: davinci: Add set dma_mask to eDMA devices
In-Reply-To: <1510483.LNzviKQJ8l@wuerfel>
References: <1441874270-2399-1-git-send-email-peter.ujfalusi@ti.com>
 <1441874270-2399-10-git-send-email-peter.ujfalusi@ti.com>
 <1510483.LNzviKQJ8l@wuerfel>
Message-ID: <55F149AA.3030301@ti.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 09/10/2015 11:45 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 10 September 2015 11:37:38 Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
>> +static u64 da8xx_edma0_dmamask = DMA_BIT_MASK(32);
>> +
>>  static struct platform_device da8xx_edma0_device = {
>>         .name           = "edma",
>>         .id             = 0,
>>         .dev = {
>>                 .platform_data = &da8xx_edma0_pdata,
>> +               .dma_mask = &da8xx_edma0_dmamask,
>> +               .coherent_dma_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(32),
>>         },
>>         .num_resources  = ARRAY_SIZE(da8xx_edma0_resources),
>>         .resource       = da8xx_edma0_resources,
>>  };
> 
> While this is technically correct for all I can tell, could you
> convert it to use __initconst platform_device_info and
> platform_device_register_full() instead?

Yes, I can do that for the eDMAs. I was also thought about this, but looking
around the mach-davinci, I thought to stick with this mode.

> statically declaring platform_devices has been frowned upon for a long
> time (even though a lot of arm platforms still do it), and statically
> declaring the dma mask seems worse to me (and yes, I realize we also
> do that elsewhere).

Will be part of v2.

-- 
P?ter