Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 22 Feb 2022 21:40:02 +0800
From:   Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, cl@linux.com, 42.hyeyoo@gmail.com,
        penberg@kernel.org, rientjes@google.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com,
        vbabka@suse.cz, David.Laight@aculab.com, david@redhat.com,
        herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, davem@davemloft.net,
        linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, steffen.klassert@secunet.com,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, hca@linux.ibm.com, gor@linux.ibm.com,
        agordeev@linux.ibm.com, borntraeger@linux.ibm.com,
        svens@linux.ibm.com, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, michael@walle.cc,
        linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, wsa@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 21/22] mmc: wbsd: Use dma_alloc_noncoherent() for dma
 buffer
Message-ID: <YhTnsvvLEoiMs8AK@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
References: <20220219005221.634-1-bhe@redhat.com>
 <20220219005221.634-22-bhe@redhat.com>
 <20220219071730.GG26711@lst.de>
 <20220220084044.GC93179@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
 <20220222084530.GA6210@lst.de>
 <YhSpaGfiQV8Nmxr+@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
 <20220222131120.GB10093@lst.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220222131120.GB10093@lst.de>
Precedence: bulk

On 02/22/22 at 02:11pm, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 05:14:16PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> > > No, if you change it, it should be dma_set_coherent_mask only as it is
> > > not using streaming mappings.  I suspect dma_set_mask_and_coherent is
> > > the right thing if the driver ever wants to use streaming mapping,
> > > it would just need to be documented in the commit message.
> > 
> > It will serve dma_alloc_noncoherent() calling later, should be streaming
> > mapping?
> 
> No, that also looks at the coherent mask.  Which is a bit misnamed these
> days, it really should be the alloc mask.

I noticed the misnamed code and have made two draft patches, please help
check if it's necessary.