linux-kernel - Re: dma_declare_coherent

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1141b20f-7cdf-1477-ef51-876226db7a37@landley.net>
Date:   Mon, 28 Jun 2021 09:29:59 -0500
From:   Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: dma_declare_coherent_memory and SuperH

On 6/28/21 8:49 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 09:04:19AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
>> > Well, the replacement is to declare the device memory carveouts in the
>> > Device Tree.
>> 
>> Your plan is to eliminate the ability for non-device-tree boards to do DMA?
> 
> No.  My hope is to kill dma_declarare_coherent, an API for board
> support files to declare device-specific regions to be used for
> coherent DMA.

Q) If I haven't got regression test hardware to make sure I properly converted
each of these entire boards to device tree, Is there anything else I can do to
help you remove this function from common code, such as inlining some portion of
this function?

A) You can convert the board to device tree.

Which part of this exchange have I misunderstood?

Rob