[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201004071854.55530.oliver@neukum.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 18:54:55 +0200
From: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
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
Am Mittwoch, 7. April 2010 16:59:47 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > The fix is to use usb_buffer_alloc() for that purpose which ensures
> > memory that is suitable for DMA. And on x86_64, this also means that the
> > upper 32 bits of the address returned are all 0's.
>
> That is not a good fix. usb_buffer_alloc() provides coherent memory,
> which is not what we want. I believe the correct fix is to specify the
> GFP_DMA32 flag in the kzalloc() call.
>
> Of course, some EHCI hardware is capable of using 64-bit addresses.
> But not all, and other controller types aren't. In principle we could
> create a new allocation routine, which would take a pointer to the USB
> bus as an additional argument and use it to decide whether the memory
> needs to lie below 4 GB. I'm not sure adding this extra complexity
> would be worthwhile.
What about XHCI? Do you really want to limit it to 32bits?
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