Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 17 Aug 2018 08:42:22 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To:     Eugeniy Paltsev <Eugeniy.Paltsev@synopsys.com>
Cc:     linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org,
        Lucas Stach <l.stach@pengutronix.de>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com>,
        Alexey Brodkin <Alexey.Brodkin@synopsys.com>,
        Russell King <linux+etnaviv@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Christian Gmeiner <christian.gmeiner@gmail.com>,
        etnaviv@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] etnaviv: missing dma_mask
Message-ID: <20180817064222.GB10811@lst.de>
References: <20180814141225.6123-1-Eugeniy.Paltsev@synopsys.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180814141225.6123-1-Eugeniy.Paltsev@synopsys.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 05:12:25PM +0300, Eugeniy Paltsev wrote:
> Hi Lucas, Christoph,
> 
> After switching ARC to generic dma_noncoherent cache ops 
> etnaviv driver start failing on dma maping functions because of
> dma_mask lack.
> 
> So I'm wondering is it valid case to have device which is
> DMA capable and doesn't have dma_mask set?
> 
> If not, then I guess something like that should work
> (at least it works for ARC):

This looks ok is a minimal fix:

Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>

But why doesn't this device have a dma-range property in DT?