[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170110145106.GC27156@lst.de>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 15:51:06 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Nikita Yushchenko <nikita.yoush@...entembedded.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org,
Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
artemi.ivanov@...entembedded.com, robin.murphy@....com,
fkan@....com, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: do not set dma masks that device connection
can't handle
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 03:47:25PM +0300, Nikita Yushchenko wrote:
> With this direction, semantics of dma mask becomes even more
> questionable. I'd say dma_mask is candidate for removal (or to move to
> swiotlb's or iommu's local area)
We need the dma mask so that the device can advertise what addresses
the device supports. Many old devices only support 32-bit DMA addressing,
and some less common ones just 24-bit or other weird ones.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists