[v1,2/2] ata: libahci_platform: Remove bogus 32-bit DMA mask attempt

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(-)

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!