From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from az33egw02.freescale.net (az33egw02.freescale.net [192.88.158.103]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "az33egw02.freescale.net", Issuer "Thawte Premium Server CA" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31B93DDDEE for ; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 14:24:16 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <476DD4C4.5030708@freescale.com> Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 21:23:48 -0600 From: Timur Tabi MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lee Revell Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH] ASoC drivers for the Freescale MPC8610 SoC References: <11981089894052-git-send-email-timur@freescale.com> <20071220040633.GA6732@lixom.net> <476A7B23.2040905@freescale.com> <75b66ecd0712202128n2f13adf2ie9a344e0c19d69ad@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <75b66ecd0712202128n2f13adf2ie9a344e0c19d69ad@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: Takashi Iwai , Olof Johansson , alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Lee Revell wrote: > Please use DMA_32BIT_MASK (see include/linux/dma-mapping.h) instead of > 0xffffffff. No prob. But did you see this comment: /* * NOTE: do not use the below macros in new code and do not add new definitions * here. * * Instead, just open-code DMA_BIT_MASK(n) within your driver */ So I guess I should use DMA_BIT_MASK(32) instead. > I've personally fixed a heisenbug in an ALSA driver > caused by incorrectly typed DMA mask... Can you explain to me what all of this does? Is it okay to use a static u64 variable? Why do so many drivers do it that way? I don't even know if 0xFFFFFFFF is the right number for my platform.