Re: [V2 PATCH 1/5] ACPI / scan: Parse _CCA and setup device coherency

[Suravee Suthikulanit]

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


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/