[RFC PATCH v6 4/5] mmc: tmio: Use dma_max_mapping_size() instead of a workaround

[Yoshihiro Shimoda]

Hi Geert-san,

> From: Geert Uytterhoeven, Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 3:23 PM
> 
> Hi Shimoda-san,
> 
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 6:54 AM Yoshihiro Shimoda
> <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh at renesas.com> wrote:
> > > From: Geert Uytterhoeven, Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 4:27 PM
> > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:18 AM Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:35:44PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
<snip>
> > > > This really should use a min_t on size_t.  Otherwise the patch looks
> > > > fine:
> > >
> > > Followed by another min() to make it fit in mmc->max_req_size, which is
> > > unsigned int.
> >
> > Geert-san:
> >
> > I'm afraid, but I cannot understand this means.
> > Is this patch is possible to be upstream? Or, do you have any concern?
> 
> Please disregard my last comment: as the value of "mmc->max_blk_size *
> mmc->max_blk_count" is always 0xffff_ffff or less, "min_t(size_t,
> mmc->max_blk_size * mmc->max_blk_count, dma_max_mapping_size(&pdev->dev))"
> will always be 0xffff_ffff or less, too, so there is no extra step needed
> to make it fit in mmc->max_req_size.

Thank you for your prompt reply! I understood it.

> Sorry for the confusion.

No worries.

Best regards,
Yoshihiro Shimoda