[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <544E2637.8000902@citrix.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 11:02:15 +0000
From: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
To: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
CC: "xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
"linux@....linux.org.uk" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"david.vrabel@...rix.com" <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 3/7] [RFC] arm/arm64: introduce is_dma_coherent
On 25/10/14 17:15, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2014, Ian Campbell wrote:
>> On Sat, 2014-10-25 at 14:29 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>>
>>> Your suggestions and looking more at the code gave me another idea, that
>>> I think is clean and at the same time suitable for 3.18.
>>> What do you think of the following? It is simple, self-contained and
>>> doesn't need a new flag in struct device.
>>
>> of_dma_is_coherent looks to be quite expensive though (walks up the
>> Device Tree doing strcmps on each property of each node until it finds
>> the one it is looking for.
>
> It takes spin_locks too!
> Too bad, I think I'll have to ditch it. In that case I'l try the new
> flag in struct device approach.
If you're having to make changes to struct device, this is looking like
a series for 3.19 (not 3.18).
David
--
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