On Monday, May 18, 2015 05:38:17 PM Suravee Suthikulanit wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
>
> On 5/15/2015 6:53 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, May 15, 2015 04:23:09 PM Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c
> >> index 4bf7559..f6bc438 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c
> >> @@ -103,14 +103,18 @@ struct platform_device
> >> *acpi_create_platform_device(struct acpi_device *adev)
> >> pdevinfo.res = resources;
> >> pdevinfo.num_res = count;
> >> pdevinfo.fwnode = acpi_fwnode_handle(adev);
> >> - pdevinfo.dma_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(32);
> >> + pdevinfo.dma_mask = acpi_dma_is_supported(adev) ? DMA_BIT_MASK(32) : 0;
> >> pdev = platform_device_register_full(&pdevinfo);
> >> - if (IS_ERR(pdev))
> >> + if (IS_ERR(pdev)) {
> >> dev_err(&adev->dev, "platform device creation failed: %ld\n",
> >> PTR_ERR(pdev));
> >> - else
> >> + } else {
> >> + if (acpi_dma_is_supported(adev))
> >> + arch_setup_dma_ops(&pdev->dev, 0, 0, NULL,
> >> + acpi_dma_is_coherent(adev));
> >
> > Shouldn't we generally do that in acpi_bind_one() for all bus types
> > that don't have specific handling rather than here?
>
> I think that would also work, and makes sense. However, I'm not sure if
> this would help in the case when we are creating PCI end-point devices,
> since the CCA is specified at the host bridge node, and there is no ACPI
> companion for the end-point devices. It seems that patch 3/6 of this
> series is still needed.
Yes, PCI needs its own handling, but there are multiple bus types that
don't (SPI, I2C etc) in addition to the platform bus type.
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
