On Wednesday 27 April 2016 14:59:00 Catalin Marinas wrote:
>
> I would be in favour of a dma_inherit() function as well. We could hack
> something up in the arch code (like below) but I would rather prefer an
> explicit dma_inherit() call by drivers creating such devices.
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/dma-mapping.h
> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/dma-mapping.h
> index ba437f090a74..ea6fb9b0e8fa 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/dma-mapping.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/dma-mapping.h
> @@ -29,8 +29,11 @@ extern struct dma_map_ops dummy_dma_ops;
>
> static inline struct dma_map_ops *__generic_dma_ops(struct device *dev)
> {
> - if (dev && dev->archdata.dma_ops)
> - return dev->archdata.dma_ops;
> + while (dev) {
> + if (dev->archdata.dma_ops)
> + return dev->archdata.dma_ops;
> + dev = dev->parent;
> + }
I think this would be a very bad idea: we don't want to have random
devices be able to perform DMA just because their parent devices
have been set up that way.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
