[PATCH] remove DMA_nBIT_MASK macro

[PATCH] remove DMA_nBIT_MASK macro

[FUJITA Tomonori]

We replaced all DMA_nBIT_MASK macros with DMA_BIT_MASK(n) but why do
we still keep DMA_nBIT_MASK macros in include/linux/dma-mapping.h?

As long as these macros exist, people use them. The current git has
two users and linux-next have other users.

Is it better to remove DMA_nBIT_MASK macros completely now?

=
From: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Subject: [PATCH] remove DMA_nBIT_MASK macros

This removes DMA_nBIT_MASK macros in dma-mapping.h so that we will not
have any new users.

Signed-off-by: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
---
 arch/arm/mach-davinci/board-dm644x-evm.c |    4 ++--
 drivers/net/igbvf/netdev.c               |   13 +++++++------
 include/linux/dma-mapping.h              |   19 -------------------
 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-davinci/board-dm644x-evm.c b/arch/arm/mach-davinci/board-dm644x-evm.c
index c039674..b2e7f9c 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-davinci/board-dm644x-evm.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-davinci/board-dm644x-evm.c
@@ -211,7 +211,7 @@ static struct resource ide_resources[] = {
 	},
 };
 
-static u64 ide_dma_mask = DMA_32BIT_MASK;
+static u64 ide_dma_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(32);
 
 static struct platform_device ide_dev = {
 	.name           = "palm_bk3710",
@@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ static struct platform_device ide_dev = {
 	.num_resources  = ARRAY_SIZE(ide_resources),
 	.dev = {
 		.dma_mask		= &ide_dma_mask,
-		.coherent_dma_mask      = DMA_32BIT_MASK,
+		.coherent_dma_mask      = DMA_BIT_MASK(32),
 	},
 };
 
diff --git a/drivers/net/igbvf/netdev.c b/drivers/net/igbvf/netdev.c
index b774666..c084d3b 100644
--- a/drivers/net/igbvf/netdev.c
+++ b/drivers/net/igbvf/netdev.c
@@ -1279,7 +1279,7 @@ static void igbvf_configure_tx(struct igbvf_adapter *adapter)
 	/* Setup the HW Tx Head and Tail descriptor pointers */
 	ew32(TDLEN(0), tx_ring->count * sizeof(union e1000_adv_tx_desc));
 	tdba = tx_ring->dma;
-	ew32(TDBAL(0), (tdba & DMA_32BIT_MASK));
+	ew32(TDBAL(0), (tdba & DMA_BIT_MASK(32)));
 	ew32(TDBAH(0), (tdba >> 32));
 	ew32(TDH(0), 0);
 	ew32(TDT(0), 0);
@@ -1365,7 +1365,7 @@ static void igbvf_configure_rx(struct igbvf_adapter *adapter)
 	 * the Base and Length of the Rx Descriptor Ring
 	 */
 	rdba = rx_ring->dma;
-	ew32(RDBAL(0), (rdba & DMA_32BIT_MASK));
+	ew32(RDBAL(0), (rdba & DMA_BIT_MASK(32)));
 	ew32(RDBAH(0), (rdba >> 32));
 	ew32(RDLEN(0), rx_ring->count * sizeof(union e1000_adv_rx_desc));
 	rx_ring->head = E1000_RDH(0);
@@ -2637,15 +2637,16 @@ static int __devinit igbvf_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
 		return err;
 
 	pci_using_dac = 0;
-	err = pci_set_dma_mask(pdev, DMA_64BIT_MASK);
+	err = pci_set_dma_mask(pdev, DMA_BIT_MASK(64));
 	if (!err) {
-		err = pci_set_consistent_dma_mask(pdev, DMA_64BIT_MASK);
+		err = pci_set_consistent_dma_mask(pdev, DMA_BIT_MASK(64));
 		if (!err)
 			pci_using_dac = 1;
 	} else {
-		err = pci_set_dma_mask(pdev, DMA_32BIT_MASK);
+		err = pci_set_dma_mask(pdev, DMA_BIT_MASK(32));
 		if (err) {
-			err = pci_set_consistent_dma_mask(pdev, DMA_32BIT_MASK);
+			err = pci_set_consistent_dma_mask(pdev,
+							  DMA_BIT_MASK(32));
 			if (err) {
 				dev_err(&pdev->dev, "No usable DMA "
 				        "configuration, aborting\n");
diff --git a/include/linux/dma-mapping.h b/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
index 8083b6a..f56e607 100644
--- a/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
+++ b/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
@@ -63,25 +63,6 @@ struct dma_map_ops {
 
 #define DMA_BIT_MASK(n)	(((n) == 64) ? ~0ULL : ((1ULL<<(n))-1))
 
-/*
- * 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
- */
-#define DMA_64BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(64)
-#define DMA_48BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(48)
-#define DMA_47BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(47)
-#define DMA_40BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(40)
-#define DMA_39BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(39)
-#define DMA_35BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(35)
-#define DMA_32BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(32)
-#define DMA_31BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(31)
-#define DMA_30BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(30)
-#define DMA_29BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(29)
-#define DMA_28BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(28)
-#define DMA_24BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(24)
-
 #define DMA_MASK_NONE	0x0ULL
 
 static inline int valid_dma_direction(int dma_direction)
-- 
1.6.0.6

Re: [PATCH] remove DMA_nBIT_MASK macro

[Yang Hongyang]

FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> We replaced all DMA_nBIT_MASK macros with DMA_BIT_MASK(n) but why do
> we still keep DMA_nBIT_MASK macros in include/linux/dma-mapping.h?
> 
> As long as these macros exist, people use them. The current git has
> two users and linux-next have other users.
> 
> Is it better to remove DMA_nBIT_MASK macros completely now?
> 

CC:ingo

I have no objections,actually I used to remove all these defines in my
first commit of these patch series,but got suggestions that keep these
defines one more circle.Maybe it's time to remove these defines now or
to remove at the end of this circle?

Reviewed-by:yanghy@cn.fujitsu.com

> =
> From: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> Subject: [PATCH] remove DMA_nBIT_MASK macros
> 
> This removes DMA_nBIT_MASK macros in dma-mapping.h so that we will not
> have any new users.
> 
> Signed-off-by: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> ---
>  arch/arm/mach-davinci/board-dm644x-evm.c |    4 ++--
>  drivers/net/igbvf/netdev.c               |   13 +++++++------
>  include/linux/dma-mapping.h              |   19 -------------------
>  3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-davinci/board-dm644x-evm.c b/arch/arm/mach-davinci/board-dm644x-evm.c
> index c039674..b2e7f9c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-davinci/board-dm644x-evm.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-davinci/board-dm644x-evm.c
> @@ -211,7 +211,7 @@ static struct resource ide_resources[] = {
>  	},
>  };
>  
> -static u64 ide_dma_mask = DMA_32BIT_MASK;
> +static u64 ide_dma_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(32);
>  
>  static struct platform_device ide_dev = {
>  	.name           = "palm_bk3710",
> @@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ static struct platform_device ide_dev = {
>  	.num_resources  = ARRAY_SIZE(ide_resources),
>  	.dev = {
>  		.dma_mask		= &ide_dma_mask,
> -		.coherent_dma_mask      = DMA_32BIT_MASK,
> +		.coherent_dma_mask      = DMA_BIT_MASK(32),
>  	},
>  };
>  
> diff --git a/drivers/net/igbvf/netdev.c b/drivers/net/igbvf/netdev.c
> index b774666..c084d3b 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/igbvf/netdev.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/igbvf/netdev.c
> @@ -1279,7 +1279,7 @@ static void igbvf_configure_tx(struct igbvf_adapter *adapter)
>  	/* Setup the HW Tx Head and Tail descriptor pointers */
>  	ew32(TDLEN(0), tx_ring->count * sizeof(union e1000_adv_tx_desc));
>  	tdba = tx_ring->dma;
> -	ew32(TDBAL(0), (tdba & DMA_32BIT_MASK));
> +	ew32(TDBAL(0), (tdba & DMA_BIT_MASK(32)));
>  	ew32(TDBAH(0), (tdba >> 32));
>  	ew32(TDH(0), 0);
>  	ew32(TDT(0), 0);
> @@ -1365,7 +1365,7 @@ static void igbvf_configure_rx(struct igbvf_adapter *adapter)
>  	 * the Base and Length of the Rx Descriptor Ring
>  	 */
>  	rdba = rx_ring->dma;
> -	ew32(RDBAL(0), (rdba & DMA_32BIT_MASK));
> +	ew32(RDBAL(0), (rdba & DMA_BIT_MASK(32)));
>  	ew32(RDBAH(0), (rdba >> 32));
>  	ew32(RDLEN(0), rx_ring->count * sizeof(union e1000_adv_rx_desc));
>  	rx_ring->head = E1000_RDH(0);
> @@ -2637,15 +2637,16 @@ static int __devinit igbvf_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
>  		return err;
>  
>  	pci_using_dac = 0;
> -	err = pci_set_dma_mask(pdev, DMA_64BIT_MASK);
> +	err = pci_set_dma_mask(pdev, DMA_BIT_MASK(64));
>  	if (!err) {
> -		err = pci_set_consistent_dma_mask(pdev, DMA_64BIT_MASK);
> +		err = pci_set_consistent_dma_mask(pdev, DMA_BIT_MASK(64));
>  		if (!err)
>  			pci_using_dac = 1;
>  	} else {
> -		err = pci_set_dma_mask(pdev, DMA_32BIT_MASK);
> +		err = pci_set_dma_mask(pdev, DMA_BIT_MASK(32));
>  		if (err) {
> -			err = pci_set_consistent_dma_mask(pdev, DMA_32BIT_MASK);
> +			err = pci_set_consistent_dma_mask(pdev,
> +							  DMA_BIT_MASK(32));
>  			if (err) {
>  				dev_err(&pdev->dev, "No usable DMA "
>  				        "configuration, aborting\n");
> diff --git a/include/linux/dma-mapping.h b/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
> index 8083b6a..f56e607 100644
> --- a/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
> +++ b/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
> @@ -63,25 +63,6 @@ struct dma_map_ops {
>  

Is it better to add a comment here to tell people that the old macro was deleted?

>  #define DMA_BIT_MASK(n)	(((n) == 64) ? ~0ULL : ((1ULL<<(n))-1))
>  
> -/*
> - * 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
> - */
> -#define DMA_64BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(64)
> -#define DMA_48BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(48)
> -#define DMA_47BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(47)
> -#define DMA_40BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(40)
> -#define DMA_39BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(39)
> -#define DMA_35BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(35)
> -#define DMA_32BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(32)
> -#define DMA_31BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(31)
> -#define DMA_30BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(30)
> -#define DMA_29BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(29)
> -#define DMA_28BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(28)
> -#define DMA_24BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(24)
> -
>  #define DMA_MASK_NONE	0x0ULL
>  
>  static inline int valid_dma_direction(int dma_direction)


-- 
Regards
Yang Hongyang

Re: [PATCH] remove DMA_nBIT_MASK macro

[Andrew Morton]

On Thu, 7 May 2009 14:14:16 +0900 FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:

> We replaced all DMA_nBIT_MASK macros with DMA_BIT_MASK(n) but why do
> we still keep DMA_nBIT_MASK macros in include/linux/dma-mapping.h?
> 
> As long as these macros exist, people use them. The current git has
> two users and linux-next have other users.
> 
> Is it better to remove DMA_nBIT_MASK macros completely now?

Yes, the plan is to remove them.

Doing so will break lots and lots of out-of-tree drivers, causing
people some grief.  Is there any way in which we can cause their use to
cause __deprecated warnings for a couple of months, to give people a
chance to migrate?

Re: [PATCH] remove DMA_nBIT_MASK macro

[Yang Hongyang]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 7 May 2009 14:14:16 +0900 FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> 
>> We replaced all DMA_nBIT_MASK macros with DMA_BIT_MASK(n) but why do
>> we still keep DMA_nBIT_MASK macros in include/linux/dma-mapping.h?
>>
>> As long as these macros exist, people use them. The current git has
>> two users and linux-next have other users.
>>
>> Is it better to remove DMA_nBIT_MASK macros completely now?
> 
> Yes, the plan is to remove them.
> 
> Doing so will break lots and lots of out-of-tree drivers, causing
> people some grief.  Is there any way in which we can cause their use to
> cause __deprecated warnings for a couple of months, to give people a
> chance to migrate?
> 
> 

Shall we use something like below to warn people?
#define DMA_64BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(64);(__deprecated warnings:use DMA_BIT_MASK(64) instead) ?

-- 
Regards
Yang Hongyang

Re: [PATCH] remove DMA_nBIT_MASK macro

[Jiri Slaby]

On 05/07/2009 10:29 AM, Yang Hongyang wrote:
> Shall we use something like below to warn people?
> #define DMA_64BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(64);(__deprecated warnings:use DMA_BIT_MASK(64) instead) ?

Something like an irq flags deprecation in the past:
http://lwn.net/Articles/229673/
?

I don't know how many in-initializer (struct x x = { DMA_64BIT_MASK } )
users are out there though.

Re: [PATCH] remove DMA_nBIT_MASK macro

[Yang Hongyang]

Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 05/07/2009 10:29 AM, Yang Hongyang wrote:
>> Shall we use something like below to warn people?
>> #define DMA_64BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(64);(__deprecated warnings:use DMA_BIT_MASK(64) instead) ?
> 
> Something like an irq flags deprecation in the past:
> http://lwn.net/Articles/229673/
> ?

good catch,but this need to be modified (add one line is enough)to cause their use to
cause __deprecated warnings.

> 
> I don't know how many in-initializer (struct x x = { DMA_64BIT_MASK } )
> users are out there though.
> 
> 


-- 
Regards
Yang Hongyang

Re: [PATCH] remove DMA_nBIT_MASK macro

[Jiri Slaby]

On 05/07/2009 10:59 AM, Yang Hongyang wrote:
> Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> Something like an irq flags deprecation in the past:
>> http://lwn.net/Articles/229673/
>> ?
> 
> good catch,but this need to be modified (add one line is enough)to cause their use to
> cause __deprecated warnings.

I'm lost, that inline does it, right?

Re: [PATCH] remove DMA_nBIT_MASK macro

[Ingo Molnar]

* Yang Hongyang <yanghy@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:

> FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > We replaced all DMA_nBIT_MASK macros with DMA_BIT_MASK(n) but why do
> > we still keep DMA_nBIT_MASK macros in include/linux/dma-mapping.h?
> > 
> > As long as these macros exist, people use them. The current git has
> > two users and linux-next have other users.
> > 
> > Is it better to remove DMA_nBIT_MASK macros completely now?

Can you see a way to emit build warnings? If yes then that might be 
a better solution instead of breaking in-the-pipeline code. We 
missed the upstream window of removing the facilities altogether, we 
could certainly do that in the next merge window though.

> CC:ingo
> 
> I have no objections,actually I used to remove all these defines in my
> first commit of these patch series,but got suggestions that keep these
> defines one more circle.Maybe it's time to remove these defines now or
> to remove at the end of this circle?
> 
> Reviewed-by:yanghy@cn.fujitsu.com

Thanks!

	Ingo

Re: [PATCH] remove DMA_nBIT_MASK macro

[FUJITA Tomonori]

On Thu, 07 May 2009 10:46:09 +0200
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 05/07/2009 10:29 AM, Yang Hongyang wrote:
> > Shall we use something like below to warn people?
> > #define DMA_64BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(64);(__deprecated warnings:use DMA_BIT_MASK(64) instead) ?
> 
> Something like an irq flags deprecation in the past:
> http://lwn.net/Articles/229673/
> ?
> 
> I don't know how many in-initializer (struct x x = { DMA_64BIT_MASK } )
> users are out there though.

Unfortunately, there are lots. Converting these macros to functions
would breaks drivers too.

Re: [PATCH] remove DMA_nBIT_MASK macro

[FUJITA Tomonori]

On Thu, 7 May 2009 13:18:46 +0200
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:

> 
> * Yang Hongyang <yanghy@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> 
> > FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > > We replaced all DMA_nBIT_MASK macros with DMA_BIT_MASK(n) but why do
> > > we still keep DMA_nBIT_MASK macros in include/linux/dma-mapping.h?
> > > 
> > > As long as these macros exist, people use them. The current git has
> > > two users and linux-next have other users.
> > > 
> > > Is it better to remove DMA_nBIT_MASK macros completely now?
> 
> Can you see a way to emit build warnings? If yes then that might be 
> a better solution instead of breaking in-the-pipeline code.

Unfortunately, no. Since 2.6.24, include/linux/dma-mapping.h has the
warning:

/*
 * 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
 */

IMO, we give people enough time for migration.


> We missed the upstream window of removing the facilities altogether,
> we could certainly do that in the next merge window though.

Can you apply this patch to the tip? I want to have this patch in
linux-next to let new users of DMA-nBIT_MASK in linux-next know that
they use wrong macros.

[PATCH 1/1] DMA: mark DMA_nBITS_MASK as deprecated

[Jiri Slaby]

Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> Can you see a way to emit build warnings? If yes then that might be 
> a better solution instead of breaking in-the-pipeline code.

What about this:
--

Mark them deprecated so that 3rd party vendors get notified about that
before their modules break by removing those macros later.

Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com>
---
 include/linux/dma-mapping.h |   26 ++++++++++++++------------
 1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/dma-mapping.h b/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
index 8083b6a..6bf3339 100644
--- a/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
+++ b/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
@@ -63,24 +63,26 @@ struct dma_map_ops {
 
 #define DMA_BIT_MASK(n)	(((n) == 64) ? ~0ULL : ((1ULL<<(n))-1))
 
+typedef u64 DMA_DEPRECATED __deprecated;
+
 /*
  * 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
  */
-#define DMA_64BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(64)
-#define DMA_48BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(48)
-#define DMA_47BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(47)
-#define DMA_40BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(40)
-#define DMA_39BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(39)
-#define DMA_35BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(35)
-#define DMA_32BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(32)
-#define DMA_31BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(31)
-#define DMA_30BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(30)
-#define DMA_29BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(29)
-#define DMA_28BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(28)
-#define DMA_24BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(24)
+#define DMA_64BIT_MASK	(DMA_DEPRECATED)DMA_BIT_MASK(64)
+#define DMA_48BIT_MASK	(DMA_DEPRECATED)DMA_BIT_MASK(48)
+#define DMA_47BIT_MASK	(DMA_DEPRECATED)DMA_BIT_MASK(47)
+#define DMA_40BIT_MASK	(DMA_DEPRECATED)DMA_BIT_MASK(40)
+#define DMA_39BIT_MASK	(DMA_DEPRECATED)DMA_BIT_MASK(39)
+#define DMA_35BIT_MASK	(DMA_DEPRECATED)DMA_BIT_MASK(35)
+#define DMA_32BIT_MASK	(DMA_DEPRECATED)DMA_BIT_MASK(32)
+#define DMA_31BIT_MASK	(DMA_DEPRECATED)DMA_BIT_MASK(31)
+#define DMA_30BIT_MASK	(DMA_DEPRECATED)DMA_BIT_MASK(30)
+#define DMA_29BIT_MASK	(DMA_DEPRECATED)DMA_BIT_MASK(29)
+#define DMA_28BIT_MASK	(DMA_DEPRECATED)DMA_BIT_MASK(28)
+#define DMA_24BIT_MASK	(DMA_DEPRECATED)DMA_BIT_MASK(24)
 
 #define DMA_MASK_NONE	0x0ULL
 
-- 
1.6.2.4

Re: [PATCH 1/1] DMA: mark DMA_nBITS_MASK as deprecated

[FUJITA Tomonori]

On Fri,  8 May 2009 10:00:38 +0200
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> > Can you see a way to emit build warnings? If yes then that might be 
> > a better solution instead of breaking in-the-pipeline code.
> 
> What about this:
> --
> 
> Mark them deprecated so that 3rd party vendors get notified about that
> before their modules break by removing those macros later.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/dma-mapping.h |   26 ++++++++++++++------------
>  1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

Ah, nice magic!

Well, "warning: 'DMA_DEPRECATED' is deprecated" warning message is a
bit obscure but the developers should notice that they do something
wrong.

Acked-by: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>


Thanks a lot,

[PATCH 1/1] dma-mapping: mark DMA_nBITS_MASK as deprecated fix

[Jiri Slaby]

Andrew, please fold into
dma-mapping: mark DMA_nBITS_MASK as deprecated
--

As Fujita correctly demurs, use more meaningful typedef name, so that we
now see:
warning: DMA_nnBIT_MASK is deprecated
instead of
warning: DMA_DEPRECATED is deprecated

Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com>
Cc: Yang Hongyang <yanghy@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
---
 include/linux/dma-mapping.h |   26 +++++++++++++-------------
 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/dma-mapping.h b/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
index 6bf3339..38f5608 100644
--- a/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
+++ b/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
@@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ struct dma_map_ops {
 
 #define DMA_BIT_MASK(n)	(((n) == 64) ? ~0ULL : ((1ULL<<(n))-1))
 
-typedef u64 DMA_DEPRECATED __deprecated;
+typedef u64 DMA_nnBIT_MASK __deprecated;
 
 /*
  * NOTE: do not use the below macros in new code and do not add new definitions
@@ -71,18 +71,18 @@ typedef u64 DMA_DEPRECATED __deprecated;
  *
  * Instead, just open-code DMA_BIT_MASK(n) within your driver
  */
-#define DMA_64BIT_MASK	(DMA_DEPRECATED)DMA_BIT_MASK(64)
-#define DMA_48BIT_MASK	(DMA_DEPRECATED)DMA_BIT_MASK(48)
-#define DMA_47BIT_MASK	(DMA_DEPRECATED)DMA_BIT_MASK(47)
-#define DMA_40BIT_MASK	(DMA_DEPRECATED)DMA_BIT_MASK(40)
-#define DMA_39BIT_MASK	(DMA_DEPRECATED)DMA_BIT_MASK(39)
-#define DMA_35BIT_MASK	(DMA_DEPRECATED)DMA_BIT_MASK(35)
-#define DMA_32BIT_MASK	(DMA_DEPRECATED)DMA_BIT_MASK(32)
-#define DMA_31BIT_MASK	(DMA_DEPRECATED)DMA_BIT_MASK(31)
-#define DMA_30BIT_MASK	(DMA_DEPRECATED)DMA_BIT_MASK(30)
-#define DMA_29BIT_MASK	(DMA_DEPRECATED)DMA_BIT_MASK(29)
-#define DMA_28BIT_MASK	(DMA_DEPRECATED)DMA_BIT_MASK(28)
-#define DMA_24BIT_MASK	(DMA_DEPRECATED)DMA_BIT_MASK(24)
+#define DMA_64BIT_MASK	(DMA_nnBIT_MASK)DMA_BIT_MASK(64)
+#define DMA_48BIT_MASK	(DMA_nnBIT_MASK)DMA_BIT_MASK(48)
+#define DMA_47BIT_MASK	(DMA_nnBIT_MASK)DMA_BIT_MASK(47)
+#define DMA_40BIT_MASK	(DMA_nnBIT_MASK)DMA_BIT_MASK(40)
+#define DMA_39BIT_MASK	(DMA_nnBIT_MASK)DMA_BIT_MASK(39)
+#define DMA_35BIT_MASK	(DMA_nnBIT_MASK)DMA_BIT_MASK(35)
+#define DMA_32BIT_MASK	(DMA_nnBIT_MASK)DMA_BIT_MASK(32)
+#define DMA_31BIT_MASK	(DMA_nnBIT_MASK)DMA_BIT_MASK(31)
+#define DMA_30BIT_MASK	(DMA_nnBIT_MASK)DMA_BIT_MASK(30)
+#define DMA_29BIT_MASK	(DMA_nnBIT_MASK)DMA_BIT_MASK(29)
+#define DMA_28BIT_MASK	(DMA_nnBIT_MASK)DMA_BIT_MASK(28)
+#define DMA_24BIT_MASK	(DMA_nnBIT_MASK)DMA_BIT_MASK(24)
 
 #define DMA_MASK_NONE	0x0ULL
 
-- 
1.6.2.4

Re: [PATCH 1/1] dma-mapping: mark DMA_nBITS_MASK as deprecated fix

[FUJITA Tomonori]

On Sun, 10 May 2009 09:04:26 +0200
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com> wrote:

> Andrew, please fold into
> dma-mapping: mark DMA_nBITS_MASK as deprecated
> --
> 
> As Fujita correctly demurs, use more meaningful typedef name, so that we
> now see:
> warning: DMA_nnBIT_MASK is deprecated
> instead of
> warning: DMA_DEPRECATED is deprecated
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com>
> Cc: Yang Hongyang <yanghy@cn.fujitsu.com>
> Cc: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> ---
>  include/linux/dma-mapping.h |   26 +++++++++++++-------------
>  1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

Acked-by: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>


But I think that you need to resend a version of this patch against
tip. We need this patch in linux-next to warn some new users of these
deprecated macros.

Thanks,

Re: [PATCH 1/1] dma-mapping: mark DMA_nBITS_MASK as deprecated fix

[Jiri Slaby]

On 05/11/2009 04:36 AM, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> But I think that you need to resend a version of this patch against
> tip. We need this patch in linux-next to warn some new users of these
> deprecated macros.

It depends on Ingo if he doesn't mind to pick it up :).

Anyway I though we want to merge this upstream for 1-2 releases and then
wave and tell it goodbye to propagate not only to linux-next users. I
would resend the patch with an entry in features removal schedule in
that case. But it's up to you...

Re: [PATCH 1/1] dma-mapping: mark DMA_nBITS_MASK as deprecated fix

[Ingo Molnar]

* Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 05/11/2009 04:36 AM, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > But I think that you need to resend a version of this patch against
> > tip. We need this patch in linux-next to warn some new users of these
> > deprecated macros.
> 
> It depends on Ingo if he doesn't mind to pick it up :).

Yes, i picked it up - dma-mapping.h changes generally get reviewed 
by and go via the IOMMU folks and is maintained in tip:core/iommu.

	Ingo

[tip:core/iommu] dma-mapping.h: mark DMA_nBITS_MASK as deprecated

[tip-bot for Jiri Slaby]

Commit-ID:  0802bbd72dbc0e285799258efbf99e2e822ad8cb
Gitweb:     http://git.kernel.org/tip/0802bbd72dbc0e285799258efbf99e2e822ad8cb
Author:     Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com>
AuthorDate: Fri, 8 May 2009 10:00:38 +0200
Committer:  Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
CommitDate: Mon, 11 May 2009 14:45:43 +0200

dma-mapping.h: mark DMA_nBITS_MASK as deprecated

Mark them deprecated so that 3rd party vendors get notified about that
before their modules break by removing those macros later.

[ Impact: trigger cleanups by emitting deprecation messages ]

Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com>
Acked-by: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: yanghy@cn.fujitsu.com
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org
LKML-Reference: <1241769638-27301-1-git-send-email-jirislaby@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>


---
 include/linux/dma-mapping.h |   26 ++++++++++++++------------
 1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/dma-mapping.h b/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
index 8083b6a..6bf3339 100644
--- a/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
+++ b/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
@@ -63,24 +63,26 @@ struct dma_map_ops {
 
 #define DMA_BIT_MASK(n)	(((n) == 64) ? ~0ULL : ((1ULL<<(n))-1))
 
+typedef u64 DMA_DEPRECATED __deprecated;
+
 /*
  * 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
  */
-#define DMA_64BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(64)
-#define DMA_48BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(48)
-#define DMA_47BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(47)
-#define DMA_40BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(40)
-#define DMA_39BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(39)
-#define DMA_35BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(35)
-#define DMA_32BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(32)
-#define DMA_31BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(31)
-#define DMA_30BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(30)
-#define DMA_29BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(29)
-#define DMA_28BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(28)
-#define DMA_24BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(24)
+#define DMA_64BIT_MASK	(DMA_DEPRECATED)DMA_BIT_MASK(64)
+#define DMA_48BIT_MASK	(DMA_DEPRECATED)DMA_BIT_MASK(48)
+#define DMA_47BIT_MASK	(DMA_DEPRECATED)DMA_BIT_MASK(47)
+#define DMA_40BIT_MASK	(DMA_DEPRECATED)DMA_BIT_MASK(40)
+#define DMA_39BIT_MASK	(DMA_DEPRECATED)DMA_BIT_MASK(39)
+#define DMA_35BIT_MASK	(DMA_DEPRECATED)DMA_BIT_MASK(35)
+#define DMA_32BIT_MASK	(DMA_DEPRECATED)DMA_BIT_MASK(32)
+#define DMA_31BIT_MASK	(DMA_DEPRECATED)DMA_BIT_MASK(31)
+#define DMA_30BIT_MASK	(DMA_DEPRECATED)DMA_BIT_MASK(30)
+#define DMA_29BIT_MASK	(DMA_DEPRECATED)DMA_BIT_MASK(29)
+#define DMA_28BIT_MASK	(DMA_DEPRECATED)DMA_BIT_MASK(28)
+#define DMA_24BIT_MASK	(DMA_DEPRECATED)DMA_BIT_MASK(24)
 
 #define DMA_MASK_NONE	0x0ULL