On Monday, May 18, 2015 05:38:17 PM Suravee Suthikulanit wrote:
Hi Rafael,
On 5/15/2015 6:53 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, May 15, 2015 04:23:09 PM Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
[...] diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c index 4bf7559..f6bc438 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c @@ -103,14 +103,18 @@ struct platform_device *acpi_create_platform_device(struct acpi_device *adev) pdevinfo.res = resources; pdevinfo.num_res = count; pdevinfo.fwnode = acpi_fwnode_handle(adev);
- pdevinfo.dma_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(32);
- pdevinfo.dma_mask = acpi_dma_is_supported(adev) ? DMA_BIT_MASK(32) : 0; pdev = platform_device_register_full(&pdevinfo);
- if (IS_ERR(pdev))
- if (IS_ERR(pdev)) { dev_err(&adev->dev, "platform device creation failed: %ld\n", PTR_ERR(pdev));
- else
- } else {
if (acpi_dma_is_supported(adev))arch_setup_dma_ops(&pdev->dev, 0, 0, NULL,acpi_dma_is_coherent(adev));Shouldn't we generally do that in acpi_bind_one() for all bus types that don't have specific handling rather than here?
I think that would also work, and makes sense. However, I'm not sure if this would help in the case when we are creating PCI end-point devices, since the CCA is specified at the host bridge node, and there is no ACPI companion for the end-point devices. It seems that patch 3/6 of this series is still needed.
Yes, PCI needs its own handling, but there are multiple bus types that don't (SPI, I2C etc) in addition to the platform bus type.