[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080428165352.GD18210@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:53:52 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, vojtech@...e.cz,
muli@...ibm.com, jdmason@...zu.us, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] x86: Fix 64-bit DMA masks on VIA
* Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > > > This untested patch is supposed to fix DMAing on some VIA
> > > > boards. Currently the DMA subsystem returns an error, if the
> > > > driver does tell that it supports a 64bit DMA mask. So the
> > > > driver probing would fail in that case.
> > >
> > > The driver is broken then. It is supposed to retry with a small
> > > mask on an error. Please fix the driver.
> >
> > I already added a workaround to the driver. Why do we need to
> > workaround this in _every_ driver? (Note that _every_ driver
> > supporting a 64bit mask is affected). Why not fix it in the DMA
> > layer?
>
> Some hardware wants to know it can get a given DMA mask or failure. I
> agree however that a "pci_prefer_64bit_dma(pdev)" function would be a
> good patch for someone to submit tot he PCI layer code.
yes, and i suspect Michael is correct in suggesting that the majority of
drivers would use that interface and would let the PCI layer handle the
probing/fallback details. (Jesse Cc:-ed)
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists