[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.21.1805291524080.16@nippy.intranet>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 15:38:23 +1000 (AEST)
From: Finn Thain <fthain@...egraphics.com.au>
To: Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@...il.com>
cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Joshua Thompson <funaho@...ai.org>,
Greg Ungerer <gerg@...ux-m68k.org>,
linux-m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] m68k: set dma and coherent masks for Macintosh SONIC
based ethernet
On Tue, 29 May 2018, Michael Schmitz wrote:
> >
> > Since an arch gets to apply limits in the dma ops it implements, why
> > would arch code also have to set a limit in the form of default
> > platform device masks? Powerpc seems to be the only arch that does
> > this.
>
> One of Christoph's recent patches removed most of arches' dma ops,
> replacing them by one generic implementation instead. m68k was one of
> the affected arches. I concede his patch series is experimental still
> and not in mainline, but may be included at some time.
I found some patches here,
http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/misc.git/shortlog/refs/heads/generic-dma-noncoherent.2
Looks like m68k_dma_alloc() gets renamed arch_dma_alloc() and the generic
ops don't use the dma masks.
Maybe I'm looking at the wrong patches?
--
Powered by blists - more mailing lists