Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751868AbaG0Dx2 (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Jul 2014 23:53:28 -0400 Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([66.63.167.143]:56259 "EHLO bedivere.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751319AbaG0Dx1 (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Jul 2014 23:53:27 -0400 Message-ID: <1406433177.11069.3.camel@jarvis> Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] [SCSI] Do not use platform_bus as a parent From: James Bottomley To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: Pawel Moll , Olof Johansson , Stephen Warren , Catalin Marinas , paul@pwsan.com, Arnd Bergmann , Peter De Schrijver , arm@kernel.org, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 07:52:57 +0400 In-Reply-To: <20140726201150.GA21870@kroah.com> References: <1406298233-27876-1-git-send-email-pawel.moll@arm.com> <1406298233-27876-4-git-send-email-pawel.moll@arm.com> <1406299616.1789.13.camel@jarvis.lan> <20140726201150.GA21870@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2014-07-26 at 13:11 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 07:46:56AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 15:23 +0100, Pawel Moll wrote: > > > The host devices without a parent were "forcefully adopted" > > > by platform bus. This patch removes this assignment. In > > > effect the dev_dev may be NULL now, which means ISA. > > > > > > Cc: James E.J. Bottomley > > > Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org > > > Signed-off-by: Pawel Moll > > > --- > > > > > > This patch is a part of effort to remove references to platform_bus > > > and make it static. > > > > > > James, could you please have a look and advice if the change is > > > correct? Would you happen to know the "real reasons" behind > > > using the root platform_bus device a parent? > > > > Yes, for DMA purposes, the parent cannot now be NULL; we'll get a panic > > in the DMA transfers if it is. A lot of the legacy ISA device on x86 > > and I thought some ARM SOC devices don't pass in the parent device, so > > we hang them off a known parent. > > The "generic" platform bus device is not a "known parent". I don't > understand the difference between just setting the parent to be NULL, > which will then have a "proper" parent pointer filled in by the driver > core when the device is registered, or faking it out here. What is the > difference? If you set the parent to NULL, the host template dma_dev will end up NULL as well and that will trigger a NULL deref panic in the dma segment routines. If you want to remove platform_bus, we have to have a well known device to set dma_dev to at scsi_host_add time. > In the end, the device always ends up with a parent pointer, right? The parent pointer isn't the problem ... assigning the correct dma device is. James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/