| Message ID | 1301473601-29570-3-git-send-email-hong.xu@atmel.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | cb457a4ddd4eeac9c81792a1e6a5d59b1b44abe1 |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 16:26 +0800, Hong Xu wrote: > use_dma was always "1" even if the CPU does not support DMA > > Tested on AT91SAM9261EK by Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD > > Reported-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> > Signed-off-by: Hong Xu <hong.xu@atmel.com> Pushed to l2-mtd-2.6.git tree. This looks like a candidate for the stable tree - should it be sent there?
Le 01/04/2011 14:54, Artem Bityutskiy : > On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 16:26 +0800, Hong Xu wrote: >> use_dma was always "1" even if the CPU does not support DMA >> >> Tested on AT91SAM9261EK by Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD >> >> Reported-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> >> Signed-off-by: Hong Xu <hong.xu@atmel.com> > > Pushed to l2-mtd-2.6.git tree. This looks like a candidate for the > stable tree - should it be sent there? Well, definitively the whole series is a candidate for .39-xx (also with the "[PATCH] MTD: atmel_nand: Fall back to CPU I/O when buffer is in vmalloc(ed) region" that follows. But, as DMA access was not included in .38, stable tree should not be impacted. Best regards,
On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 15:37 +0200, Nicolas Ferre wrote: > Le 01/04/2011 14:54, Artem Bityutskiy : > > On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 16:26 +0800, Hong Xu wrote: > >> use_dma was always "1" even if the CPU does not support DMA > >> > >> Tested on AT91SAM9261EK by Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD > >> > >> Reported-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Hong Xu <hong.xu@atmel.com> > > > > Pushed to l2-mtd-2.6.git tree. This looks like a candidate for the > > stable tree - should it be sent there? > > Well, definitively the whole series is a candidate for .39-xx (also with > the "[PATCH] MTD: atmel_nand: Fall back to CPU I/O when buffer is in > vmalloc(ed) region" that follows. > > But, as DMA access was not included in .38, stable tree should not be > impacted. I see, then this is not -stable material. But should be merged this merge window.
On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 15:37 +0200, Nicolas Ferre wrote: > Le 01/04/2011 14:54, Artem Bityutskiy : > > On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 16:26 +0800, Hong Xu wrote: > >> use_dma was always "1" even if the CPU does not support DMA > >> > >> Tested on AT91SAM9261EK by Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD > >> > >> Reported-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Hong Xu <hong.xu@atmel.com> > > > > Pushed to l2-mtd-2.6.git tree. This looks like a candidate for the > > stable tree - should it be sent there? > > Well, definitively the whole series is a candidate for .39-xx (also with > the "[PATCH] MTD: atmel_nand: Fall back to CPU I/O when buffer is in > vmalloc(ed) region" that follows. Thanks for pointing this, I could miss that patch.
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/atmel_nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/atmel_nand.c index c36ea50..1b43654 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/atmel_nand.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/atmel_nand.c @@ -599,7 +599,10 @@ static int __init atmel_nand_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) nand_chip->options |= NAND_USE_FLASH_BBT; } - if (cpu_has_dma() && use_dma) { + if (!cpu_has_dma()) + use_dma = 0; + + if (use_dma) { dma_cap_mask_t mask; dma_cap_zero(mask);
use_dma was always "1" even if the CPU does not support DMA Tested on AT91SAM9261EK by Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD Reported-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> Signed-off-by: Hong Xu <hong.xu@atmel.com> --- drivers/mtd/nand/atmel_nand.c | 5 ++++- 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)