[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200818161006.GA25124@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 17:10:06 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc: Cho KyongHo <pullip.cho@...sung.com>, janghyuck.kim@...sung.com,
catalin.marinas@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
hyesoo.yu@...sung.com, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
robin.murphy@....com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dma-mapping: introduce relaxed version of dma sync
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:07:57AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > so I'm not sure
> > > that we should be complicating the implementation like this to try to
> > > make it "fast".
> > >
> > I agree that this patch makes the implementation of dma API a bit more
> > but I don't think this does not impact its complication seriously.
>
> It's death by a thousand cuts; this patch further fragments the architecture
> backends and leads to arm64-specific behaviour which consequently won't get
> well tested by anybody else. Now, it might be worth it, but there's not
> enough information here to make that call.
So it turns out I misread the series (*cough*, crazy long lines,
*cough*), and it does not actually expose a new API as I thought, but
it still makes a total mess of the internal interface. It turns out
that on the for cpu side we already have arch_sync_dma_for_cpu_all,
which should do all that is needed. We could do the equivalent for
the to device side, but only IFF there really is a major benefit for
something that actually is mainstream and matters.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists