[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120821130539.GD12708@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:05:39 +0100
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Cc: "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 14/31] arm64: DMA mapping API
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 01:40:06AM +0100, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 06:52:15PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > +static inline struct dma_map_ops *get_dma_ops(struct device *dev)
> > +{
> > + if (unlikely(!dev) || !dev->archdata.dma_ops)
> > + return dma_ops;
> > + else
> > + return dev->archdata.dma_ops;
> > +}
>
> Does it make sense to add the concept of a global dma ops on arm64,
> instead of requiring the dma ops pointer per device similar to how
> some other platforms do it (including powerpc)? For devices that lack
> archdata.dma_ops, dma_supported() should return 0 (and the other ops
> should return error).
If the device doesn't have archdata.dma_ops we return the default
implementation which is currently based on swiotlb. Do you mean that
this shouldn't be the case and just let the device always set
archdata.dma_ops?
--
Catalin
--
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