[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20110201142103M.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 14:22:01 +0900
From: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
To: hancockrwd@...il.com
Cc: fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp, ak@...ux.intel.com,
cebbert@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dwmw2@...radead.org
Subject: Re: b44 driver causes panic when using swiotlb
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:22:23 -0600
Robert Hancock <hancockrwd@...il.com> wrote:
> > Some ideas to implement something that works for such device were
> > discussed. Seems that the conclusion is that it's doesn't worth making
> > the common code complicated for such minor and insane devices.
>
> I don't think this is the only device that has sub-32-bit DMA
> restrictions, this will just lead to a bunch of duplicated code.
Yeah, not only device but not many.
The block layer has the own bouncing mechanism. Some network drivers
have the similar bouncing code. I don't know if there are other kinds
of drivers that have the own bouncing code.
I thought that we can make mm/bounce.c (used for block drivers now)
work any drivers without complicating it. We could make swiotlb to do
but it's too complicated and it doesn't worth.
> In
> particular, how is LPC DMA supposed to work?
LPC DMA can't do 32bit dma?
> At the very least we should be allowing the driver to deal with the
> failure instead of panicing the system. Otherwise we are just leaving a
> land mine for people to trip over.
Agreed. swiotlb shouldn't panic in this case. I'll take care of it.
--
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