[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181026124455.GA28571@lst.de>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 14:44:55 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] arm64: use the generic swiotlb_dma_ops
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 06:52:51PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> scatterlist *sgl,
>> - int nelems, enum dma_data_direction dir,
>> - unsigned long attrs)
>> +long arch_dma_coherent_to_pfn(struct device *dev, void *cpu_addr,
>
> I realise I'm spotting this a bit late, but does this interface really need
> somewhat-atypical signed PFNs?
It has been a while since I wrote this code, and I can't remember the
reason for it except that I'm pretty sure I copy and pasted it from
existing code somewhere.
Switching it to unsigned long should be fine, and patches are welcome.
>> +static int __swiotlb_get_sgtable_page(struct sg_table *sgt,
>> + struct page *page, size_t size)
>
> If __iommu_get_sgtable() is now the only user, I'd say just inline these
> remnants there (or let that case call dma_common_sgtable() if that's what
> swiotlb_dma_ops are now relying on). Either way the "__swiotlb" is now a
> complete misnomer.
It is. But we hopefully kill both the only user and this helper in
the 4.21 merge window when moving the iommu dma api wrappers to common
code.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists