linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv4] DMAEngine: Define interleaved transfer request api

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJe_Zhe9B2n1ZYqSAY9gEjeJn2rx6WOVZ5Tn463=sb_H-k8xew@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:07:30 +0530
From:	Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>
To:	Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>
Cc:	Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>,
	"Bounine, Alexandre" <Alexandre.Bounine@....com>,
	"Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	DL-SHA-WorkGroupLinux <workgroup.linux@....com>,
	Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4] DMAEngine: Define interleaved transfer request api

On 18 October 2011 13:56, Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 14:00 +0530, Jassi Brar wrote:
>> On 18 October 2011 13:12, Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:15:29AM +0530, Jassi Brar wrote:
>> >> On 18 October 2011 02:37, Bounine, Alexandre <Alexandre.Bounine@....com> wrote:
>> >> > With item #1 above being a separate topic, I may have a problem with #2
>> >> > as well: dma_addr_t is sized for the local platform and not guaranteed
>> >> > to be a 64-bit value (which may be required by a target).
>> >> > Agree with #3 (if #1 and #2 work).
>> >> >
>> >> Perhaps simply change dma_addr_t to u64 in dmaengine.h alone ?
>> >
>> > That's just an idiotic suggestion - there's no other way to put that.
>> > Let's have some sanity here.
>> >
>> Yeah, I am not proud of the workaround, so I only probed the option.
>> I think I need to explain myself.
>>
>> The case here is that even a 32-bit RapidIO host could ask transfer against
>> 64-bit address space on a remote device. And vice versa 64->32.
> I thought RIO address were always 64 + 2 bits, irrespective of what the
> host system is...
>
No, not always. RIO address could be 32, 48 or 64... with the role extra 2 bits
not very clear.
--
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/