On Nov 11, 2010, at 6:16 AM, Li Yang wrote: > Expand the dma_mask of fsldma device to 36-bit, indicating that the > DMA engine can deal with 36-bit physical address and does not need > the SWIOTLB to create bounce buffer for it when doing dma_map_*(). > > Signed-off-by: Li Yang <le...@freescale.com> > --- > Add more detailed commit message > > drivers/dma/fsldma.c | 4 +++- > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/dma/fsldma.c b/drivers/dma/fsldma.c > index cea08be..8c79b37 100644 > --- a/drivers/dma/fsldma.c > +++ b/drivers/dma/fsldma.c > @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ > /* > * Freescale MPC85xx, MPC83xx DMA Engine support > * > - * Copyright (C) 2007 Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. All rights reserved. > + * Copyright (C) 2007-2010 Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. All rights reserved. > * > * Author: > * Zhang Wei <wei.zh...@freescale.com>, Jul 2007 > @@ -1338,6 +1338,8 @@ static int __devinit fsldma_of_probe(struct > platform_device *op, > fdev->common.device_control = fsl_dma_device_control; > fdev->common.dev = &op->dev; > > + dma_set_mask(&(op->dev), DMA_BIT_MASK(36)); > +
Is there any reason we shouldn't set DMA_BIT_MASK(64) since the DMA block programming model allows the address to be 64-bits? > dev_set_drvdata(&op->dev, fdev); > > /* > -- > 1.6.6-rc1.GIT > _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
