From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Wed, 07 Nov 2018 09:04:15 +0100 (CET) Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:36341 "EHLO newverein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S23990946AbeKGIDgfMUlZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Nov 2018 09:03:36 +0100 Received: by newverein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 01BC968C44; Wed, 7 Nov 2018 09:03:36 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 09:03:35 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Robin Murphy Cc: hch@lst.de, robh+dt@kernel.org, m.szyprowski@samsung.com, aaro.koskinen@iki.fi, jean-philippe.brucker@arm.com, john.stultz@linaro.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] of/device: Really only set bus DMA mask when appropriate Message-ID: <20181107080335.GA24511@lst.de> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 67122 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: hch@lst.de Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: linux-mips X-List-ID: linux-mips List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: linux-mips On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 11:54:15AM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote: > of_dma_configure() was *supposed* to be following the same logic as > acpi_dma_configure() and only setting bus_dma_mask if some range was > specified by the firmware. However, it seems that subtlety got lost in > the process of fitting it into the differently-shaped control flow, and > as a result the force_dma==true case ends up always setting the bus mask > to the 32-bit default, which is not what anyone wants. > > Make sure we only touch it if the DT actually said so. This looks good, but I think it could really use a comment as the use of ret all the way down the function isn't exactly obvious. Let me now if you want this picked up through the OF or DMA trees.