[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1004071149140.1779-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 11:55:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
cc: Daniel Mack <daniel@...aq.de>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Pedro Ribeiro <pedrib@...il.com>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
<linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: USB transfer_buffer allocations on 64bit systems
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Greg KH wrote:
> Yeah, I really don't want to have to change every driver in different
> ways just depending on if someone thinks it is going to need to run on
> this wierd hardware.
It's not weird hardware, as far as I know. It's just a 64-bit system
with a 32-bit USB host controller.
(And remember, while there are 64-bit EHCI controllers, there are not
any 64-bit OHCI or UHCI controllers. So whenever somebody plugs a
full-speed or low-speed device into a 64-bit machine, they will face
this problem. It's like the old problem of ISA devices that could
only do DMA to addresses in the first 16 MB of memory -- what the
original GFP_DMA flag was intended for.)
> Alan, any objection to just using usb_buffer_alloc() for every driver?
> Or is that too much overhead?
I don't know what the overhead is. But usb_buffer_alloc() requires the
caller to keep track of the buffer's DMA address, so it's not a simple
plug-in replacement. In addition, the consistent memory that
usb_buffer_alloc() provides is a scarce resource on some platforms.
Writing new functions is the way to go.
Alan Stern
--
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