[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <7366A4DE-6848-4AF6-AA33-6BD89B0A5153@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 15:56:32 -0500
From: Kumar Gala <galak@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, jeremy@...p.org,
fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp, ian.campbell@...rix.com,
beckyb@...nel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] swiotlb: Allow arch override of address_needs_mapping
On Apr 8, 2009, at 3:38 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 09:09:18AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>> From: Becky Bruce <beckyb@...nel.crashing.org>
>>
>> Some architectures require additional checking to determine
>> if a device can dma to an address and need to provide their
>> own address_needs_mapping..
>
> Shouldn't we just move it completely to the arch? I think that ia64
> and
> x86 currently use the same one is more of an accident.
It seems like the swiotlb code uses __weak for a number of things:
lib/swiotlb.c:void * __weak __init swiotlb_alloc_boot(size_t size,
unsigned long nslabs)
lib/swiotlb.c:void * __weak swiotlb_alloc(unsigned order, unsigned
long nslabs)
lib/swiotlb.c:dma_addr_t __weak swiotlb_phys_to_bus(struct device
*hwdev, phys_addr_t paddr)
lib/swiotlb.c:phys_addr_t __weak swiotlb_bus_to_phys(struct device
*hwdev, dma_addr_t baddr)
lib/swiotlb.c:void * __weak swiotlb_bus_to_virt(struct device *hwdev,
dma_addr_t address)
lib/swiotlb.c:int __weak swiotlb_arch_address_needs_mapping(struct
device *hwdev,
lib/swiotlb.c:int __weak swiotlb_arch_range_needs_mapping(phys_addr_t
paddr, size_t size)
instead of #ifndef HAVE_ARCH_<FOO>. Not sure if there is a historical
reason for that.
- k
--
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