On Sun, 2017-06-18 at 00:13 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 06:50:27AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > What is your rationale here ? (I have missed patch 0 it seems).
>
> Less code duplication, more modular dma_map_ops insteance.
>
> > dma_supported() was suppos
On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 06:50:27AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> What is your rationale here ? (I have missed patch 0 it seems).
Less code duplication, more modular dma_map_ops insteance.
> dma_supported() was supposed to be pretty much a "const" function
> simply informing whether a giv
On Fri, 2017-06-16 at 20:10 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Besides removing the last instance of the set_dma_mask method this also
> reduced the code duplication.
What is your rationale here ? (I have missed patch 0 it seems).
dma_supported() was supposed to be pretty much a "const" function
s
Besides removing the last instance of the set_dma_mask method this also
reduced the code duplication.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig
---
arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/iommu.c | 25 +
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/cel
Besides removing the last instance of the set_dma_mask method this also
reduced the code duplication.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig
---
arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/iommu.c | 25 +
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/cel
