On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Matt Porter wrote:
> +spinlock_t rio_global_list_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
spin_lock_init?
> +extern struct rio_route_ops __start_rio_route_ops[];
> +extern struct rio_route_ops __end_rio_route_ops[];
rio.h?
> +static void
> +rio_set_device_id(struct rio_mport *port, u16 destid, u8 hopcount, u16 did)
Shouldn't those be on the same line?
> +static int rio_device_has_destid(struct rio_mport *port, int src_ops,
> + int dst_ops)
> +{
> + if (((src_ops & RIO_SRC_OPS_READ) ||
> + (src_ops & RIO_SRC_OPS_WRITE) ||
> + (src_ops & RIO_SRC_OPS_ATOMIC_TST_SWP) ||
> + (src_ops & RIO_SRC_OPS_ATOMIC_INC) ||
> + (src_ops & RIO_SRC_OPS_ATOMIC_DEC) ||
> + (src_ops & RIO_SRC_OPS_ATOMIC_SET) ||
> + (src_ops & RIO_SRC_OPS_ATOMIC_CLR)) &&
> + ((dst_ops & RIO_DST_OPS_READ) ||
> + (dst_ops & RIO_DST_OPS_WRITE) ||
> + (dst_ops & RIO_DST_OPS_ATOMIC_TST_SWP) ||
> + (dst_ops & RIO_DST_OPS_ATOMIC_INC) ||
> + (dst_ops & RIO_DST_OPS_ATOMIC_DEC) ||
> + (dst_ops & RIO_DST_OPS_ATOMIC_SET) ||
> + (dst_ops & RIO_DST_OPS_ATOMIC_CLR))) {
> + return 1;
Why not just;
mask = (RIO_DST_OPS_READ | RIO_DST_OPS_WRITE....)
return !!((dst_ops & mask) && (src_ops & mask))
> + rdev->dev.dma_mask = (u64 *) 0xffffffff;
> + rdev->dev.coherent_dma_mask = 0xffffffffULL;
Shouldn't that be dma_set_mask?
Zwane
