[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110428135621.GE13402@8bytes.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:56:21 +0200
From: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] ARM DMA mapping TODO, v1
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 02:19:28PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 03:02:16PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> You still need this same cache handling code even when you don't have
> an iommu.
You can reference the same code from different places.
> I don't see the point in having a dma_ops level of indirection
> followed by a separate iommu_ops level of indirection - it seems to me
> to be a waste of code and CPU time, and I don't see why its even
> necessary when there's a much simpler way to deal with it (as I
> illustrated).
There is no waste of code, just the opposite. Most of the dma_ops
implementations that use an IOMMU today have a lot of similiarities in
their code. All this code (on x86, alpha, sparc, ia64, ...) can
be unified to a generic solution that fits all (by abstracting the
differences between iommus into the iommu-api). So the current situation
is a much bigger code waste than having this unified. The ARM platforms
supporting iommu hardware will benefit from this as well. It simply
doesn't make sense to have one dma_ops implementation for each iommu
hardware around.
Regards,
Joerg
--
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