lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Nov]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH V2] dma: dw-edma-pcie: switch from 'pci_' to 'dma_' API
From
Date
Le 09/11/2021 à 14:21, Dan Carpenter a écrit :
> On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 08:05:53PM +0100, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> Le 28/09/2021 à 05:44, Qing Wang a écrit :
>>> From: Wang Qing <wangqing@vivo.com>
>>>
>>> The wrappers in include/linux/pci-dma-compat.h should go away.
>>>
>>> The patch has been generated with the coccinelle script below.
>>> expression e1, e2;
>>> @@
>>> - pci_set_dma_mask(e1, e2)
>>> + dma_set_mask(&e1->dev, e2)
>>>
>>> @@
>>> expression e1, e2;
>>> @@
>>> - pci_set_consistent_dma_mask(e1, e2)
>>> + dma_set_coherent_mask(&e1->dev, e2)
>>>
>>> While at it, some 'dma_set_mask()/dma_set_coherent_mask()' have been
>>> updated to a much less verbose 'dma_set_mask_and_coherent()'.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Wang Qing <wangqing@vivo.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/dma/dw-edma/dw-edma-pcie.c | 17 ++++-------------
>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/dma/dw-edma/dw-edma-pcie.c b/drivers/dma/dw-edma/dw-edma-pcie.c
>>> index 44f6e09..198f6cd
>>> --- a/drivers/dma/dw-edma/dw-edma-pcie.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/dma/dw-edma/dw-edma-pcie.c
>>> @@ -186,27 +186,18 @@ static int dw_edma_pcie_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
>>> pci_set_master(pdev);
>>> /* DMA configuration */
>>> - err = pci_set_dma_mask(pdev, DMA_BIT_MASK(64));
>>> + err = dma_set_mask_and_coherent(&pdev->dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(64));
>>> if (!err) {
>> if err = 0, so if no error...
>>
>>> - err = pci_set_consistent_dma_mask(pdev, DMA_BIT_MASK(64));
>>> - if (err) {
>>> - pci_err(pdev, "consistent DMA mask 64 set failed\n");
>>> - return err;
>>> - }
>>> + pci_err(pdev, "DMA mask 64 set failed\n");
>>> + return err;
>> ... we log an error, return success but don't perform the last steps of the
>> probe.
>
> I have an unpublished Smatch check for these:
>
> drivers/dma/dw-edma/dw-edma-pcie.c:192 dw_edma_pcie_probe() info: return a literal instead of 'err'
>
> The idea of the Smatch check is that it's pretty easy to get "if (!ret)"
> and "if (ret)" transposed. It would show up in testing, of course, but
> the truth is that maintainers don't always have all the hardware they
> maintain.
>
> And the other idea is that "return 0;" is always more readable and
> intentional than "return ret;" where ret is zero.
>
> Anyway, is someone going to fix these?

Patch sent.
Feed-back welcomed.

CJ

>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-11-09 22:13    [W:0.073 / U:0.148 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site