Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 10:31:15 +0100
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org, will.deacon@arm.com,
        herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, al.stone@linaro.org,
        linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Murali Karicheri <m-karicheri2@ti.com>,
        msalter@redhat.com, grant.likely@linaro.org, lenb@kernel.org,
        thomas.lendacky@amd.com, arnd@arndb.de, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, bhelgaas@google.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, leo.duran@amd.com, hanjun.guo@linaro.org,
        Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>, davem@davemloft.net
Subject: Re: [V4 PATCH 3/6] pci: Generic function for setting up PCI device
 DMA coherency
Message-ID: <20150520093115.GB25313@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <1431724994-21601-1-git-send-email-Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com>
 <1431724994-21601-4-git-send-email-Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com>
 <3954735.qeaTp8qOcM@vostro.rjw.lan>
 <20150520092415.GA25313@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150520092415.GA25313@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1562
Lines: 42

On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 10:24:15AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 01:59:00AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, May 15, 2015 04:23:11 PM Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> > > +/**
> > > + * pci_dma_configure - Setup DMA configuration
> > > + * @pci_dev: ptr to pci_dev struct of the PCI device
> > > + *
> > > + * Function to update PCI devices's DMA configuration using the same
> > > + * info from the OF node or ACPI node of host bridge's parent (if any).
> > > + */
> > > +static void pci_dma_configure(struct pci_dev *pci_dev)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct device *dev = &pci_dev->dev;
> > > +	struct device *bridge = pci_get_host_bridge_device(pci_dev);
> > > +	struct device *host = bridge->parent;
> > > +	struct acpi_device *adev;
> > > +
> > > +	if (!host)
> > > +		return;
> > > +
> > > +	if (acpi_disabled) {
> > > +		of_dma_configure(dev, host->of_node);
> > 
> > I'd rather do
> > 
> > 	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) && host->of_node) {
> > 		of_dma_configure(dev, host->of_node);
> 
> Nitpick: do we need the CONFIG_OF check? If disabled, I don't think
> anyone would set host->of_node.

Please ignore this, there is no point in checking host->of_node if
CONFIG_OF is disabled (I was just thinking from an arm64 perspective
where we always have CONFIG_OF enabled).

-- 
Catalin
--
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/