Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755927AbZDHXiS (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Apr 2009 19:38:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755552AbZDHXiD (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Apr 2009 19:38:03 -0400 Received: from sh.osrg.net ([192.16.179.4]:60291 "EHLO sh.osrg.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755502AbZDHXiB (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Apr 2009 19:38:01 -0400 Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 08:37:29 +0900 To: jeremy@goop.org Cc: fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp, galak@kernel.crashing.org, hch@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, ian.campbell@citrix.com, beckyb@kernel.crashing.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] swiotlb: Allow arch override of address_needs_mapping From: FUJITA Tomonori In-Reply-To: <49DD3041.8020808@goop.org> References: <49DD270A.6060506@goop.org> <20090409080143C.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> <49DD3041.8020808@goop.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20090409083752I.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (sh.osrg.net [192.16.179.4]); Thu, 09 Apr 2009 08:37:29 +0900 (JST) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1530 Lines: 31 On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 16:16:17 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > >> Becky's patches of last week also added __weak annotations to > >> swiotlb_bus_to_virt, virt_to_bus and bus_to_phys; added the hwdev > >> parameter to swiotlb_bus_to_phys; and added a weak > >> swiotlb_arch_address_needs_mapping. I assume that was needed because > >> powerpc needs non-trivial implementations for those functions. > >> > > > > Hmm, what she added are wrappers of virt_to_bus and bus_to_virt. We > > can remove these and directly use virt_to_bus and bus_to_virt. > > > > In general those interfaces are deprecated. Are we un-deprecating > them? Or do you mean adding virt<->bus to dma_ops? Hmm, these interfaces are wrong for drivers surely because they can't handle dma mapping properly. However, they are exactly what swiotlb needs (swiotlb doesn't need to care about dma mapping). Until 2.6.28, swiotlb has used them. They are with IA64, X86_64 and PPC_32, I think. > > About __weak address_needs_mapping function, as I said, removing it > > and using dma_map_ops is a proper solution. > > > > Fine. Could swiotlb_alloc() just call dma_alloc_coherent() too? I'm not sure what you mean. And I don't think ppc wants swiotlb_alloc. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/