Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 6 May 2015 17:16:35 -0500 | From | Suravee Suthikulanit <> | Subject | Re: [V2 PATCH 1/5] ACPI / scan: Parse _CCA and setup device coherency |
| |
On 5/6/2015 5:21 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>> > >>+ bool >>>> > >>+ >>>> > >>+config ACPI_SUPPORT_CCA_ZERO >>> > > >>> > >I guess this means "we support devices that can DMA, but are not coherent". >>> > >right? >> > >> >Yes, basically when _CCA=0. > So what about > > ARCH_SUPPORT_CACHE_INCOHERENT_DMA
Since this is specific to ACPI _CCA, I just want to be clear with the naming.
> or something similar? > >>>> > >>+ bool >>>> > >>+ >>>> > >> config ACPI_SLEEP >>>> > >> bool >>>> > >> depends on SUSPEND || HIBERNATION >>>> > >>diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c >>>> > >>index 4bf7559..a6feca4 100644 >>>> > >>--- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c >>>> > >>+++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c >>>> > >>@@ -108,9 +108,11 @@ struct platform_device *acpi_create_platform_device(struct acpi_device *adev) >>>> > >> if (IS_ERR(pdev)) >>>> > >> dev_err(&adev->dev, "platform device creation failed: %ld\n", >>>> > >> PTR_ERR(pdev)); >>>> > >>- else >>>> > >>+ else { >>> > > >>> > >Please add braces to both branches when making such changes (as per CodingStyle). >>> > > >> > >> >OK. >> > >>>> > >>+ acpi_setup_device_dma(adev, &pdev->dev); >>> > > >>> > >Why do we need to do that here (for the second time)? >> > >> >Because we are calling: >> > acpi_create_platform_device() >> > |--> platform_device_register_device_full() >> > |-->platform_device_alloc() >> > >> >This creates platform_device, which allocate a new platform_device->dev. >> >This is not the same as the original acpi_device->dev that was created >> >during acpi_add_single_object(). So, we have to set up the device >> >coherency again. > Ah, so the second arg is different now. > > Well, in that case, why do we need to set it up for the adev's dev member? >
Just for sanity, since I don't know if adev->dev will be referenced anywhere else. This way, it's consistent for all copied of struct device generated.
Lemme know if you think that is unnecessary.
Thanks,
Suravee
| |