On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 03:23:53PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
> Jeff/Zach, I agree, I'm fully for such a patch, but please update the
> documentation! It is the most important part of the patch.
Very good point. I'll add Jeff's error returning and spin some minor
docs and resend.
thanks.
-
Zach Brown writes:
> > extremely minor nit that I think pci_set_dma_mask should return ENODEV
> > or EIO or something on error, and zero on success.
>
> I agree, though I'd like to leave the decision up to people who live and
> breathe this stuff.
>
> please feel free to make minor adjus
> pci_dma_supported has a boolean return, but the kernel norm is to return
> zero on success, and -EFOO on error. I like your proposal with the
*nod* I just followed pci_dma_supported().
> extremely minor nit that I think pci_set_dma_mask should return ENODEV
> or EIO or something on error, an
Zach Brown wrote:
> +int
> +pci_set_dma_mask(struct pci_dev *dev, dma_addr_t mask)
> +{
> +if(! pci_dma_supported(dev, mask))
> +return 0;
> +
> +dev->dma_mask = mask;
> +
> +return 1;
> +}
pci_dma_supported has a boolean return, but the kernel norm is to return
zero on succes
This patch really has two parts. Most of it adds a helper function that
does the
if(pci_dma_supported()) { ->dma_mask = mask }
code path. I was using the api today and didn't realize that I had to
set the mask myself, I assumed the _supported call would do it. If
people prefer the s
5 matches
Mail list logo
