[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201002171109.32107.oliver@neukum.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:09:31 +0100
From: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: "Shilimkar, Santosh" <santosh.shilimkar@...com>,
Matthew Dharm <mdharm-kernel@...-eyed-alien.net>,
"Russell King - ARM Linux" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>,
"Mankad, Maulik Ojas" <x0082077@...com>,
Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...mvista.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
"linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: USB mass storage and ARM cache coherency
Am Mittwoch, 17. Februar 2010 10:40:09 schrieb Benjamin Herrenschmidt:
> What bugs me here is that the dma_map_* operation should always
> be done at the lowest level, ie, the actual HCD driver, and thus
> it should be up to the HCD to decide whether to dma_map or not
> depending on whether it's going to do DMA or not. I haven't
> scrutinized USB lately but if that isn't the case and the dma_map_*
> operations are done behind your back by the USB core then that needs to
> be changed in a way or another, or hooked at least.
No problem here. USB core does the mapping only if the low-level driver
so requests. The only exception is in usb_buffer_alloc(), but that boils
down to dma_alloc_coherent()
Regards
Oliver
--
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