Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935621AbZDITvT (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Apr 2009 15:51:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1761603AbZDITvG (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Apr 2009 15:51:06 -0400 Received: from sh.osrg.net ([192.16.179.4]:38508 "EHLO sh.osrg.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760941AbZDITvF (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Apr 2009 15:51:05 -0400 Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 04:50:10 +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: <49DE4A37.3080702@goop.org> References: <49DD3C9C.7060101@goop.org> <20090410033357S.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> <49DE4A37.3080702@goop.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20090410045039G.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]); Fri, 10 Apr 2009 04:50:12 +0900 (JST) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1675 Lines: 35 On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 12:19:19 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > >> Well, Becky's patches also added the hwdev argument to them, so > >> presumably the powerpc implementation needs that (different > >> devices/buses have differing views of physical memory, I guess). > >> > > > > Until I see the ppc specific swiotlb patchset, I'm not sure but I > > think that we can remove phys_to_bus in swiotlb. > > > > Kumar's comment was: "For our SoC chips we don't need any mapping > between phys & bus. However something like PCI does have a mapping (a > simple offset)." > > Kumar, could a single system have different phys<->bus mappings on a > single system, or could it differ from device to device (or bus to bus)? > > > Even if we need phys_to_bus, we can remove the rest of __weak tricks > > for only dom0. And we can make phys_to_bus arch-specific. Then we > > don't need any __weak tricks in swiotlb (and x86's swiotlb). dom0 > > support adds many hacks to swiotlb. > > > > Well, we'd still need a way to do hook the swiotlb_alloc(_boot) > allocation. At the moment its effectively arch-specific because x86 > only uses swiotlb_alloc_boot(), and ia64 only uses swiotlb_alloc(). One Hmm, I think that ia64 use swiotlb_alloc_boot too. ia64 uses swiotlb in two ways; using only swiotlb, using swiotlb and hw iommu. The latter is similar what x86 Calgary does. -- 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/