[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201004090804.36213.oliver@neukum.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 08:04:35 +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 Freitag, 9. April 2010 00:20:36 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > > That would work, but it doesn't match the way existing drivers use the
> > > interface. For example, the audio driver allocates a 16-byte coherent
> > > buffer and then uses four bytes from it for each of four different
> > > URBs.
> >
> > That will not work with any fallback that does not yield a coherent buffer.
>
> What you mean isn't entirely clear. But it certainly does work in
> various circumstances that don't yield coherent buffers. For example,
> it works if the controller uses PIO instead of DMA. It also works if
> the controller uses DMA and the URBs have to be bounced.
It'll work on x86. On incoherent architectures this violates the cacheline
rules for DMA-mapping if you have to bounce. So it seems to me that
if you want to share a buffer between URBs, it must be 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