On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 12:15:18PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 2:32 AM, Thomas Petazzoni > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dan, Ezequiel, > > > > On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 05:34:08 -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > > > >> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Ezequiel Garcia > >> > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > Despite requesting two memory resources, called 'base' and > >> > > 'high_base', the > >> > > driver uses explicitly only the former. The latter is being used > >> > > implicitly > >> > > by addressing at offset +0x200, which in practice accesses high_base. > >> > > > >> > > Instead of relying in such trick, let's define the registers with the > >> > > offset from high_base, and use high_base explicitly where appropriate. > >> > > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Ezequiel Garcia <[email protected]> > >> > > --- > >> > > drivers/dma/mv_xor.c | 3 ++- > >> > > drivers/dma/mv_xor.h | 25 +++++++++++++------------ > >> > > 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > >> > > >> > Since it's unused I'd prefer a patch that just deletes xor_high_base. > >> > > >> > >> It's wrongly *unused*, the mmio high_base is actually being used > >> implicitly by always addressing at an offset that addresses +200. > >> > >> Deleting high_base would actually make it worse, for that region > >> will no longer be ioremaped. Maybe the commit message is not clear > >> about it? > > > > I agree with Ezequiel, and I believe his patch is appropriate. The > > registers for the XOR engines are indeed split in two areas, so it > > makes sense to have this xor_base / xor_high_base split that reflects > > the register mapping passed from the Device Tree, and use this split in > > the macros used to access the registers. > > > > Ah ok, so it's a bug if an implementation ever puts the second > resource window at a non 0x200 offset. > > Ezequiel , can you resend the patch to the new
Sure. > [email protected] list (patchwork queue) and clarify that this > is a fix rather than a pure cleanup in the changelog? At least > cleanup is how I first read it. > By the way, I didn't initially Cced dmaengine list because it's not in the MAINTAINERS file. How about we add it and avoid this happening to other developers? diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS index ebaf8bd..cd57b4a 100644 --- a/MAINTAINERS +++ b/MAINTAINERS @@ -1397,6 +1397,15 @@ F: drivers/dma/ F: include/linux/dmaengine.h F: include/linux/async_tx.h +DMAENGINE SUBSYSTEM +M: Dan Williams <[email protected]> +L: [email protected] +S: Maintained +F: Documentation/dmaengine.txt +F: drivers/dma/ +F: include/linux/dma/ +F: include/linux/dmaengine.h + AT24 EEPROM DRIVER M: Wolfram Sang <[email protected]> L: [email protected] I'll submit the patch if you want. Just check the above is correct. If there's a git repo, it might be good to add is as well. -- Ezequiel García, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android Engineering http://free-electrons.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
