Message ID | 20211209145937.77719-2-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | [v1,1/2] ata: libahci_platform: Get rid of dup message when IRQ can't be retrieved | expand |
On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 04:59:37PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > If 64-bit mask attempt fails, the 32-bit will fail by the very same reason. > Don't even try the latter. It's a continuation of the changes that contains, > e.g. dcc02c19cc06 ("sata_sil24: use dma_set_mask_and_coherent"). I understand that some people have nothing besides bikeshedding, but this patch seems fine to everybody, am I right? Can it be applied (it's independent from patch 1 anyways)?
On 2021/12/11 4:34, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 04:59:37PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> If 64-bit mask attempt fails, the 32-bit will fail by the very same reason. >> Don't even try the latter. It's a continuation of the changes that contains, >> e.g. dcc02c19cc06 ("sata_sil24: use dma_set_mask_and_coherent"). > > I understand that some people have nothing besides bikeshedding, but this patch > seems fine to everybody, am I right? Can it be applied (it's independent from > patch 1 anyways)? > Yes, this one seems fine to me. It would be good to get a different review though (I know hard to get reviews on ata patches...). I will queue it for 5.17.
On 12/9/21 23:59, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > If 64-bit mask attempt fails, the 32-bit will fail by the very same reason. > Don't even try the latter. It's a continuation of the changes that contains, > e.g. dcc02c19cc06 ("sata_sil24: use dma_set_mask_and_coherent"). > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> > --- > drivers/ata/libahci_platform.c | 9 ++------- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/ata/libahci_platform.c b/drivers/ata/libahci_platform.c > index 1af642c84e7b..972f5ec86a27 100644 > --- a/drivers/ata/libahci_platform.c > +++ b/drivers/ata/libahci_platform.c > @@ -637,13 +637,8 @@ int ahci_platform_init_host(struct platform_device *pdev, > if (hpriv->cap & HOST_CAP_64) { > rc = dma_coerce_mask_and_coherent(dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(64)); > if (rc) { > - rc = dma_coerce_mask_and_coherent(dev, > - DMA_BIT_MASK(32)); > - if (rc) { > - dev_err(dev, "Failed to enable 64-bit DMA.\n"); > - return rc; > - } > - dev_warn(dev, "Enable 32-bit DMA instead of 64-bit.\n"); > + dev_err(dev, "Failed to enable 64-bit DMA.\n"); > + return rc; > } > } > > Applied to for-5.17. For patch 1/2, waiting for you v2 restoring the irq == 0 check.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 09:58:09AM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote: > On 12/9/21 23:59, Andy Shevchenko wrote: ... > For patch 1/2, waiting for you v2 restoring the irq == 0 check. Just sent a v2 of it, thanks!
diff --git a/drivers/ata/libahci_platform.c b/drivers/ata/libahci_platform.c index 1af642c84e7b..972f5ec86a27 100644 --- a/drivers/ata/libahci_platform.c +++ b/drivers/ata/libahci_platform.c @@ -637,13 +637,8 @@ int ahci_platform_init_host(struct platform_device *pdev, if (hpriv->cap & HOST_CAP_64) { rc = dma_coerce_mask_and_coherent(dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(64)); if (rc) { - rc = dma_coerce_mask_and_coherent(dev, - DMA_BIT_MASK(32)); - if (rc) { - dev_err(dev, "Failed to enable 64-bit DMA.\n"); - return rc; - } - dev_warn(dev, "Enable 32-bit DMA instead of 64-bit.\n"); + dev_err(dev, "Failed to enable 64-bit DMA.\n"); + return rc; } }
If 64-bit mask attempt fails, the 32-bit will fail by the very same reason. Don't even try the latter. It's a continuation of the changes that contains, e.g. dcc02c19cc06 ("sata_sil24: use dma_set_mask_and_coherent"). Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> --- drivers/ata/libahci_platform.c | 9 ++------- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)