On 5/1/26 3:55 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:

On Fri, May 01, 2026 at 01:06:23PM -0500, Alex Elder wrote:

quoted

On 5/1/26 12:13 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:

quoted

quoted

   	if (priv->dma_cap.host_dma_width) {
-		ret = dma_set_mask_and_coherent(device,
-				DMA_BIT_MASK(priv->dma_cap.host_dma_width));
+		u64 mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(priv->dma_cap.host_dma_width);
+
+		ret = dma_set_mask_and_coherent(priv->dma_device, mask);

I'm nitpicking, but i don't think you need to introduce mask.
DMA_BIT_MASK... is already on a line of its own, and is within the 80
limit. Nothing changes here with s/device/priv->dma_device/

	Andrew

I did this.  It was simply to silence a checkpatch.pl warning
about a long line.

I don't care either way, I'll gladly put it back the way it was.

Please pull checkpatch fixes out into a patch of their own.

That's what we'll do in the next version.  I'll undo this particular
change, and will add it to the end of the series.

Thanks.

					-Alex

        Andrew