diff mbox series

[04/22] drm/sti: Don't use GFP_DMA when calling dma_alloc_wc()

Message ID 20220219005221.634-5-bhe@redhat.com (mailing list archive)
State Not Applicable
Headers show
Series Don't use kmalloc() with GFP_DMA | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
netdev/fixes_present success Fixes tag not required for -next series
netdev/subject_prefix success Link
netdev/cover_letter success Series has a cover letter
netdev/patch_count fail Series longer than 15 patches (and no cover letter)
netdev/header_inline success No static functions without inline keyword in header files
netdev/build_32bit success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/cc_maintainers fail 4 maintainers not CCed: airlied@linux.ie daniel@ffwll.ch dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org alain.volmat@foss.st.com
netdev/build_clang success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/module_param success Was 0 now: 0
netdev/verify_signedoff success Signed-off-by tag matches author and committer
netdev/verify_fixes success No Fixes tag
netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/checkpatch success total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 24 lines checked
netdev/kdoc success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/source_inline success Was 0 now: 0
netdev/tree_selection success Guessing tree name failed - patch did not apply

Commit Message

Baoquan He Feb. 19, 2022, 12:52 a.m. UTC 
dma_alloc_wc() allocates dma buffer with device's addressing
limitation in mind. It's redundent to specify GFP_DMA when calling
dma_alloc_wc().

[ 42.hyeyoo@gmail.com: Update changelog ]

Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/sti/sti_cursor.c | 4 ++--
 drivers/gpu/drm/sti/sti_hqvdp.c  | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Comments

Christoph Hellwig Feb. 19, 2022, 7:08 a.m. UTC | #1 
On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 08:52:03AM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> dma_alloc_wc() allocates dma buffer with device's addressing
> limitation in mind. It's redundent to specify GFP_DMA when calling
> dma_alloc_wc().

Looks good:

Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/sti/sti_cursor.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/sti/sti_cursor.c
index 1d6051b4f6fe..d1123dc09d25 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/sti/sti_cursor.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/sti/sti_cursor.c
@@ -235,7 +235,7 @@  static int sti_cursor_atomic_check(struct drm_plane *drm_plane,
 		cursor->pixmap.base = dma_alloc_wc(cursor->dev,
 						   cursor->pixmap.size,
 						   &cursor->pixmap.paddr,
-						   GFP_KERNEL | GFP_DMA);
+						   GFP_KERNEL);
 		if (!cursor->pixmap.base) {
 			DRM_ERROR("Failed to allocate memory for pixmap\n");
 			return -EINVAL;
@@ -375,7 +375,7 @@  struct drm_plane *sti_cursor_create(struct drm_device *drm_dev,
 	/* Allocate clut buffer */
 	size = 0x100 * sizeof(unsigned short);
 	cursor->clut = dma_alloc_wc(dev, size, &cursor->clut_paddr,
-				    GFP_KERNEL | GFP_DMA);
+				    GFP_KERNEL);
 
 	if (!cursor->clut) {
 		DRM_ERROR("Failed to allocate memory for cursor clut\n");
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/sti/sti_hqvdp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/sti/sti_hqvdp.c
index 3c61ba8b43e0..324e9dc238e4 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/sti/sti_hqvdp.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/sti/sti_hqvdp.c
@@ -857,7 +857,7 @@  static void sti_hqvdp_init(struct sti_hqvdp *hqvdp)
 	size = NB_VDP_CMD * sizeof(struct sti_hqvdp_cmd);
 	hqvdp->hqvdp_cmd = dma_alloc_wc(hqvdp->dev, size,
 					&dma_addr,
-					GFP_KERNEL | GFP_DMA);
+					GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!hqvdp->hqvdp_cmd) {
 		DRM_ERROR("Failed to allocate memory for VDP cmd\n");
 		return;