On 5/20/2015 4:34 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 11:27:54AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 20 May 2015 10:24:15 Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 01:59:00AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, May 15, 2015 04:23:11 PM Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
+/**
+ * pci_dma_configure - Setup DMA configuration
+ * @pci_dev: ptr to pci_dev struct of the PCI device
+ *
+ * Function to update PCI devices's DMA configuration using the same
+ * info from the OF node or ACPI node of host bridge's parent (if any).
+ */
+static void pci_dma_configure(struct pci_dev *pci_dev)
+{
+ struct device *dev = &pci_dev->dev;
+ struct device *bridge = pci_get_host_bridge_device(pci_dev);
+ struct device *host = bridge->parent;
+ struct acpi_device *adev;
+
+ if (!host)
+ return;
+
+ if (acpi_disabled) {
+ of_dma_configure(dev, host->of_node);
I'd rather do
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) && host->of_node) {
of_dma_configure(dev, host->of_node);
Nitpick: do we need the CONFIG_OF check? If disabled, I don't think
anyone would set host->of_node.
If of_dma_configure() is defined in a file that is built conditionally
based on CONFIG_OF, you need it.
We have a dummy of_dma_configure() already when !CONFIG_OF, otherwise
we would need #ifndef here. I already replied, I think for other
architectures we need this check to avoid a useless host->of_node test.
It seems that there are several places that have similar check. Would it
be good to convert this into a macro? Something like:
#define OF_NODE_ENABLED(dev) (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) && dev->of_node)
Thanks all for the review feedback.
Suravee
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
