From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932565AbcGOKrx (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 15 Jul 2016 06:47:53 -0400
Received: from mail-vk0-f51.google.com ([209.85.213.51]:35198 "EHLO
	mail-vk0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S932187AbcGOKrv (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 15 Jul 2016 06:47:51 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160715094542.GE1041@n2100.armlinux.org.uk>
References: <1468573443-4670-1-git-send-email-anup.patel@broadcom.com>
 <1468573443-4670-8-git-send-email-anup.patel@broadcom.com> <20160715094542.GE1041@n2100.armlinux.org.uk>
From: Anup Patel <anup.patel@broadcom.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 16:17:50 +0530
Message-ID: <CAALAos8SWRT1m=R1WDhky_=5CAz9V2MwHjqhDm=bfO5jxVpi_w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] uio: bind uio_dmem_genirq via OF
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Cc: "Hans J. Koch" <hjk@hansjkoch.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Scott Branden <sbranden@broadcom.com>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        Ray Jui <rjui@broadcom.com>,
        Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        BCM Kernel Feedback <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com>,
        Ankit Jindal <thatsjindal@gmail.com>,
        Linux ARM Kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Jan Viktorin <viktorin@rehivetech.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 02:34:02PM +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
>> +static int uio_dmem_genirq_alloc_platdata(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> +{
>> +     struct uio_dmem_genirq_pdata pdata;
>> +     u32 dma_bits, regions;
>> +     u32 sizes[MAX_UIO_MAPS];
>> +     int ret;
>> +
>> +     memset(&pdata, 0, sizeof(pdata));
>> +
>> +     ret = of_property_read_u32(pdev->dev.of_node,
>> +                                uio_of_dma_bits_prop, &dma_bits);
>> +     if (ret) {
>> +             dev_err(&pdev->dev,
>> +                     "Missing property %s\n", uio_of_dma_bits_prop);
>> +             return ret;
>> +     }
>> +     if (dma_bits > 64)
>> +             dma_bits = 64;
>> +
>> +     dma_set_coherent_mask(&pdev->dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(dma_bits));
>
> You really need to check the return value from this: this function
> negotiates with the architecture, and if 64-bit DMA is not supported,
> then the call will fail and you as a driver are expected to fall back
> to 32-bit DMA only.
>
> In that case, you're expected to call the same function with a 32-bit
> mask, and if that fails, you're supposed to then decide that DMA is
> not possible.
>

Thanks for pointing out.

I will fix this as-per your suggestion in next revision.

Regards,
Anup