Mikael Pettersson wrote:
quoted text
> Several drivers do the following:
> 
> 	struct pci_dev *pdev = ...;
> 	...
> 	if (dma_set_mask(&pdev->dev, mask))
> 		...
> 
> But pdev->dev.dma_mask == &pdev->dma_mask, so this is essentially a
> roundabout way of saying
> 
> 	if (pci_set_dma_mask(pdev, mask))
> 
> except that it bypasses the PCI-specific operations pci_set_dma_mask()
> may do on that platform.
> 
> Drivers doing this include drivers/scsi/aic7xxx/aic79xx_osm_pci.c,
> drivers/scsi/aic7xxxx/aic7xxx_osm_pci.c, drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_os.c,
> drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2x00pci.c, and drivers/media/video/meye.c.
> 
> Is it considered acceptable that drivers bypass the PCI DMA API on
> PCI devices like this, or are these drivers in error?
> 
> I'm doing some work on an embedded platform (ARM IXP4xx) with some
> PCI DMA restrictions. To handle these the platform provides its own
> versions of pci_set_dma_mask() and pci_set_consistent_dma_mask(),
> but its dma_set_mask() currently does not do anything PCI-specific.
> The question is: should dma_set_mask() have PCI knowledge or not?

AFAIK pci_set_dma_mask is somewhat deprecated, and dma_set_mask should 
be used instead. If the platform fails to do what's needed when 
dma_set_mask is called on a PCI device then it would seem the platform 
code is in error.

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/